My neighbors and I have been accused of being opposed to RUPCO's project because we live nearby. I have cited a lack of safety as the main reason for my opposition to the proposal as it stands, and the sole reason for this blog.
I want to explain why this is not, and in fact IS the opposite of a NIMBY argument.
When somebody lives near a hazard, they are acutely aware of that hazard, and they become especially vigilant when close to that hazard. This vigilance becomes second nature.
Here is an example: When I was a child, there was carpeting in my bedroom, and right at the threshold to the room, there were one or two tacks sticking up from the floor. I NEVER stepped on them. Neither did anybody else in my family. It never occurred to us to fix this hazard because we all were trained, in some subconscious way, to step over that threshold. My parents should have fixed this hazard, but they didn't. All of my friends cried out in pain when they entered my room, but my response was, in line with my parents' practice, simply to tell them to be careful. This example shows us that people who live with and near hazards simply get used to them and avoid their dangers.
What this simple example shows us is that people UNfamiliar with the hazards of a particularly tricky intersection are going to be the ones who get hurt. The other people who will get hurt are the locals, those among us who deny that there is any real danger at the intersection of Route 212 and Playhouse Lane in Woodstock, New York.
When I drive through this intersection, the very fact that RUPCO might BE in my backyard is the reason I am going to be just fine.
And you? When you give your friends and loved ones driving directions, and they are busy making the left onto 212 from 375, busy reading the billboard as they do so, and busy admiring the playhouse, do you think they will have any awareness at all of the cars backing out of Playhouse Plaza?
Monday, January 25, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
31- The Power of Observation
I have been asked by what standard I am qualified to make an assessment of a traffic study for RUPCO. There are many answers, but I want to tell you how I discovered it. I want to show you how simple it is, broken down, step by step.
When I first learned about RUPCO's plans, and all the cars that were going to come through the intersection of Playhouse Plaza and Route 212, it seemed to me that surely somebody would have already taken the project traffic numbers and done a simulation of car travel, meaning, send cars through the intersection according to the study numbers, to physically show how there would be too much traffic.
I was quite surprised to learn that project opponents had spent full days counting cars, but not actually SHOWING anybody, themselves included, what 400 extra cars, per day, LOOKS like, in that intersection.
So, my first idea was to round up some neighbors, pick an hour of the day that RUPCO's consultant, Creighton Manning, told us there would be a lot of traffic, and make that traffic happen, with real cars.
I figured out how to produce around 30 trips through the intersection using only 5 cars, by asking them to drive through the intersection in various directions at various points during the hour.
I videotaped the hour, and my conclusion was that the additional cars, on their own, were not the problem. This hour was between 5 and 6 PM, when Lori's restaurant business is winding down, and before dinner at Violette restaurant, also right at the intersection, picks up.
I take research very seriously, and I do not want to make any uninformed decisions. At that point, however, I believed that the cars resulting from RUPCO's presence, would not, as my one hour experiment had revealed, pose a traffic volume problem at the intersection, or anywhere else.
After that, some neighbors told me that when they take their kids to school, there is a lot more traffic, and lots of business at Lori's restaurant. Furthermore, the "rush" at the intersection is not defined by the rush hour of 9-5 commuters, but rather by the business at Playhouse Plaza. Some of the stores there do not open until well past 9 AM.
That is when I decided to videotape a morning hour. First I chose the morning of Yom Kippur. Oops. School was closed, and all Jews observing any holidays were probably fasting that day. Then I chose the first day of the Woodstock Film Festival. Oops again. There was SO much traffic in the parking lot, the study was just not fair, in the other direction. Finally, I chose a regular Tuesday in October, from 8:42 to 9:42 AM. There was no reason for this morning other than that my mother was visiting and was nice enough to offer to keep me company in the car during the hour.
The result of that hour's videotape was nothing less than stunning. I counted all the cars, and at first, I didn't even count the cars going into and out of the parking lot. But the longer I watched, the less sense it made for the parking lot traffic to be excluded, since THAT traffic was clearly causing all of the danger and confusion and delays in the intersection.
At that point, I went to look at the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, because my sketched notes did not show any car counts into or out of the parking lot, and I wanted to verify that the parking lot had been omitted from the study. I have to mention, here, that I expected this omission since I already knew that there were other omissions in the study.
I live on Evergreen Lane, and Creighton Manning left my entire street off its map. Yes, that's right. According to Creighton Manning, there will be NO additional traffic on my street, so why bother even to draw in the street. Even though Evergreen Lane is parallel to Playhouse Lane and Plochmann Lane, and could be used to travel from Plochmann and 212 to the entrance to the RUPCO project. Right now, there is no reason for any car to drive up my street, unless it is coming TO my street, or to the five houses beyond the end of my street. The effect that this project will have on through-traffic on my street will be the difference between occasional traffic to those five houses, and occasional traffice to 58 houses (five plus 53 new ones.) That means that although traffic now is next to nothing, it will increase by ten times. That is significant.
However, I was told by somebody at the Planning Board office that my street was irrelevant to the project traffic study. What is interesting about that is that I receive letters from the Planning board, notices of meetings and so forth, addressed to me as a "contiguous neighbor" of the proposed project. I had already been disgusted with my street's omission from the traffic movement study, so it was not difficult for me to believe that Creighton Manning had also excluded the very important car movement into and out of the Playhouse Plaza parking lot.
As you can now see, anybody with a questioning mind and patience could have discovered Creighton Manning's omissions. I did, as a combination of having my home and street excluded, and the study's negation of my direct observations.
I am also an experienced policy analyst, which means that it has been my JOB to question and question and challenge and discover things that are missing from what look like the work of competent, professional "experts," but are in fact much much less than perfect. And, I know from history that terrible omissions in "comprehensive" studies have cost cities and nations millions and billions of dollars, and many lives. And I know that one individual citizen, who focuses, and thinks, and asks, and asks some more, and tests, and documents, and reasons, can add valuable information to a debate.
Never let anybody tell you that things are too complicated for you to understand, or that something that feels wrong to you is going to be for your own good if you just leave it alone and trust the authorities. Trust your gut, do your homework, see for yourself, and share your experience. We will ALL be better off for it.
When I first learned about RUPCO's plans, and all the cars that were going to come through the intersection of Playhouse Plaza and Route 212, it seemed to me that surely somebody would have already taken the project traffic numbers and done a simulation of car travel, meaning, send cars through the intersection according to the study numbers, to physically show how there would be too much traffic.
I was quite surprised to learn that project opponents had spent full days counting cars, but not actually SHOWING anybody, themselves included, what 400 extra cars, per day, LOOKS like, in that intersection.
So, my first idea was to round up some neighbors, pick an hour of the day that RUPCO's consultant, Creighton Manning, told us there would be a lot of traffic, and make that traffic happen, with real cars.
I figured out how to produce around 30 trips through the intersection using only 5 cars, by asking them to drive through the intersection in various directions at various points during the hour.
I videotaped the hour, and my conclusion was that the additional cars, on their own, were not the problem. This hour was between 5 and 6 PM, when Lori's restaurant business is winding down, and before dinner at Violette restaurant, also right at the intersection, picks up.
I take research very seriously, and I do not want to make any uninformed decisions. At that point, however, I believed that the cars resulting from RUPCO's presence, would not, as my one hour experiment had revealed, pose a traffic volume problem at the intersection, or anywhere else.
After that, some neighbors told me that when they take their kids to school, there is a lot more traffic, and lots of business at Lori's restaurant. Furthermore, the "rush" at the intersection is not defined by the rush hour of 9-5 commuters, but rather by the business at Playhouse Plaza. Some of the stores there do not open until well past 9 AM.
That is when I decided to videotape a morning hour. First I chose the morning of Yom Kippur. Oops. School was closed, and all Jews observing any holidays were probably fasting that day. Then I chose the first day of the Woodstock Film Festival. Oops again. There was SO much traffic in the parking lot, the study was just not fair, in the other direction. Finally, I chose a regular Tuesday in October, from 8:42 to 9:42 AM. There was no reason for this morning other than that my mother was visiting and was nice enough to offer to keep me company in the car during the hour.
The result of that hour's videotape was nothing less than stunning. I counted all the cars, and at first, I didn't even count the cars going into and out of the parking lot. But the longer I watched, the less sense it made for the parking lot traffic to be excluded, since THAT traffic was clearly causing all of the danger and confusion and delays in the intersection.
At that point, I went to look at the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, because my sketched notes did not show any car counts into or out of the parking lot, and I wanted to verify that the parking lot had been omitted from the study. I have to mention, here, that I expected this omission since I already knew that there were other omissions in the study.
I live on Evergreen Lane, and Creighton Manning left my entire street off its map. Yes, that's right. According to Creighton Manning, there will be NO additional traffic on my street, so why bother even to draw in the street. Even though Evergreen Lane is parallel to Playhouse Lane and Plochmann Lane, and could be used to travel from Plochmann and 212 to the entrance to the RUPCO project. Right now, there is no reason for any car to drive up my street, unless it is coming TO my street, or to the five houses beyond the end of my street. The effect that this project will have on through-traffic on my street will be the difference between occasional traffic to those five houses, and occasional traffice to 58 houses (five plus 53 new ones.) That means that although traffic now is next to nothing, it will increase by ten times. That is significant.
However, I was told by somebody at the Planning Board office that my street was irrelevant to the project traffic study. What is interesting about that is that I receive letters from the Planning board, notices of meetings and so forth, addressed to me as a "contiguous neighbor" of the proposed project. I had already been disgusted with my street's omission from the traffic movement study, so it was not difficult for me to believe that Creighton Manning had also excluded the very important car movement into and out of the Playhouse Plaza parking lot.
As you can now see, anybody with a questioning mind and patience could have discovered Creighton Manning's omissions. I did, as a combination of having my home and street excluded, and the study's negation of my direct observations.
I am also an experienced policy analyst, which means that it has been my JOB to question and question and challenge and discover things that are missing from what look like the work of competent, professional "experts," but are in fact much much less than perfect. And, I know from history that terrible omissions in "comprehensive" studies have cost cities and nations millions and billions of dollars, and many lives. And I know that one individual citizen, who focuses, and thinks, and asks, and asks some more, and tests, and documents, and reasons, can add valuable information to a debate.
Never let anybody tell you that things are too complicated for you to understand, or that something that feels wrong to you is going to be for your own good if you just leave it alone and trust the authorities. Trust your gut, do your homework, see for yourself, and share your experience. We will ALL be better off for it.
30- Perennial Playhouse Plaza Parking Problems Previously Puzzled Planners
Hello. Tonight I want to discuss an issue that was brought up on local access TV a couple of days ago. Michael Veitch and David Menzies, in reviewing the RUPCO-related articles and letters in the Woodstock Times, got around to discussing the time the doctor at Playhouse Plaza rented his office.
Whether Menzies was on the planning board then, or at another time, I don't know, but they pointed out that the doctor was supposed to have provided a sort of valet parking arrangement for his patients, since parking at Playhouse Plaza was already tight. That was the planning board's decision, or solution. Something like that.
Menzies and Veitch's discussion reminded me of this, since I first learned about that chapter in Playhouse Plaza Parking history from the doctor himself. About three months ago, I was out photographing cars parked on the north side of Route 212. The doctor started to complain about the cars, and I told him that I agree with him, and then we got to talking about his lease and the valet parking arrangement by which he was supposed to have abided.
What all this says is that the planning board is well aware of the surfeit of cars at the Playhouse Plaza parking lot. Having already considered the problem of one single merchant, there, bringing about a very inconvenient and complicated parking solution, how can they explain their blindness to Creighton Manning's omission of all the cars in this parking lot, in the RUPCO traffic study?
Seems to me the planning board simply didn't think, much.
Whether Menzies was on the planning board then, or at another time, I don't know, but they pointed out that the doctor was supposed to have provided a sort of valet parking arrangement for his patients, since parking at Playhouse Plaza was already tight. That was the planning board's decision, or solution. Something like that.
Menzies and Veitch's discussion reminded me of this, since I first learned about that chapter in Playhouse Plaza Parking history from the doctor himself. About three months ago, I was out photographing cars parked on the north side of Route 212. The doctor started to complain about the cars, and I told him that I agree with him, and then we got to talking about his lease and the valet parking arrangement by which he was supposed to have abided.
What all this says is that the planning board is well aware of the surfeit of cars at the Playhouse Plaza parking lot. Having already considered the problem of one single merchant, there, bringing about a very inconvenient and complicated parking solution, how can they explain their blindness to Creighton Manning's omission of all the cars in this parking lot, in the RUPCO traffic study?
Seems to me the planning board simply didn't think, much.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
29- How Many Accidents Make this Project UNaffordable?
This morning, January 21, at 8:52 AM, I was called by my neighbor, who was walking her 8 year old daughter to Woodstock Elementary School. She told me that there was something going on at Route 212 and Playhouse Lane, and that it involved two fire engines and an ambulance. I ran out the door with dog and camera, and before telling you what I learned about what happened, I feel that this series of photographs will say more than I ever could. 
I interviewed one participant in the accident, and she described to me what happened. I have sketched her account in a handy diagram, below.
According to this woman, who was extremely flustered and did not wish to identify herself by name, she was driving east on route 212 when a car, parked in Playhouse Plaza parking lot, backed out. The car in front of this woman stopped so that the car could back out, and this woman also stopped, suddenly, in order to avoid driving into the car in front of her. The car behind her, which makes a third car on Route 212, failed to stop and drove into this woman's car. The photo of the crushed front end is a photo of the fourth car in the sequence.
In this diagram, car 1 (blue) backed out of the parking lot, backing out west in order to drive east, car 2 (pink) stopped to give blue car 1 room. Car 3 (yellow) was driven by the participant who spoke to me. She stopped Car 3 so that it would not hit Car 2. Car 4 (green) did not stop in time, and ploughed into Car 3. The photo of the white car with the crushed front end is Car 4.
Now, this is the intersection through which virtually all of the traffic to the RUPCO housing will drive. It is my opinion that the town of Woodstock cannot afford to accommodate much more traffic in this spot than it already does.
Creighton Manning Engineering, in research for Ulster County, in 2003, presented guidelines that make is clear that parking lots should not be placed in intersections, and if that can't be changed, that traffic in the relevant area should be limited. LIMITED is the opposite of introducing 400+ more car trips per day, every day, forever.
It is my opinion that the negative press Woodstock will receive for ANY accident at this intersection, after RUPCO has broken ground, is something the town cannot afford.
It is my opinion that the town of Woodstock will not be able to afford its casualty and liability insurance premium increases, once its insurance carrier, NYMIR, gets wind of this trend of reckless development.
But who am I to make an assessment of this situation? Just a person who is paying attention. Look at these photos, and this diagram, and look at what RUPCO wants to do, and has done in terms of measuring the safety of this intersection, and make your own assessment.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
28- Nobody Showed Up at Guy Kempe's Urging
On Monday, January 11th, Guy Kempe, RUPCO's director of community development, announced on RUPCO's facebook page, the Woodstock Planning Board's public hearing on the RUPCO proposed site plan:
Here is the web page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rural-Ulster-Preservation-Company/110906738064?ref=nf
Here is the specific post:
Rural Ulster Preservation Company PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE RE-OPENED Thursday 1/14/10 5PM on the site plan/special use permit for Woodstock Commons. Now is the time to speak up in support of Woodstock Commons, affordable housing for seniors, artists and working families. Let's expand housing choice in Woodstock!
January 11 at 7:27am
On the morning of Jan. 14, he updated his notice, since the location of the public hearing had been changed the day before:
Rural Ulster Preservation Company THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE RE-OPENED Thursday 1/14/10 5PM on the site plan/special use permit for Woodstock Commons. NOTICE- LOCATION CHANGE: THE MEETING WILL NOW BE HELD AT THE WOODSTOCK COMMUNITY CENTER, ROCK CITY ROAD, WOODSTOCK
Thu at 7:19am
There were 26 speakers at the public hearing.
23 spoke against the project.
3 spoke in favor of the project.
Were any of those three people "fans" of RUPCO on facebook? I know for a fact that one of them does not own or use a computer. Two are regulars at public hearings on many topics, and the other one, who had also spoken before, stated that he wanted to apply for housing at Woodstock Commons. I would bet my own money that these three people would have shown up and spoken with or without Guy Kempe's urging. I don't think I am going out on a limb to state that Guy Kempe's effort to bring people to the public hearing was entirely ineffective. Could it be that aside from these three expected pro- speakers, there isn't anybody around actually in favor of this housing project? Way to "develop" the community, Guy.
Here is the web page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rural-Ulster-Preservation-Company/110906738064?ref=nf
Here is the specific post:
Rural Ulster Preservation Company PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE RE-OPENED Thursday 1/14/10 5PM on the site plan/special use permit for Woodstock Commons. Now is the time to speak up in support of Woodstock Commons, affordable housing for seniors, artists and working families. Let's expand housing choice in Woodstock!
January 11 at 7:27am
On the morning of Jan. 14, he updated his notice, since the location of the public hearing had been changed the day before:
Rural Ulster Preservation Company THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE RE-OPENED Thursday 1/14/10 5PM on the site plan/special use permit for Woodstock Commons. NOTICE- LOCATION CHANGE: THE MEETING WILL NOW BE HELD AT THE WOODSTOCK COMMUNITY CENTER, ROCK CITY ROAD, WOODSTOCK
Thu at 7:19am
There were 26 speakers at the public hearing.
23 spoke against the project.
3 spoke in favor of the project.
Were any of those three people "fans" of RUPCO on facebook? I know for a fact that one of them does not own or use a computer. Two are regulars at public hearings on many topics, and the other one, who had also spoken before, stated that he wanted to apply for housing at Woodstock Commons. I would bet my own money that these three people would have shown up and spoken with or without Guy Kempe's urging. I don't think I am going out on a limb to state that Guy Kempe's effort to bring people to the public hearing was entirely ineffective. Could it be that aside from these three expected pro- speakers, there isn't anybody around actually in favor of this housing project? Way to "develop" the community, Guy.
Friday, January 15, 2010
27- RUPCO's Guy Kempe A'salts Me
Guy Kempe, RUPCO's director of community development, told the Woodstock Times this week that he would take "anything that Robin has put her name to with a little grain of salt." Then he asks: "according what standard is she qualified to make an assessment?" (an assessment of Creighton Manning's traffic study.)
For such a glaring and basic error of omission by supposedly qualified traffic engineers, there are so many standards by which I could be called qualified to make an assessment. Let us look at some of them! And to make it more fun, I think I'll make all the standards by which I am qualified to make an assessment different colors. What fun is a personal blog without a little color...
The short answer is that I took the study, and compared it to the actual intersection, by putting on my boots and going down there, and I found that the study misrepresented reality. So, I guess the standard by which I am qualified to make an assessment is that I know the difference between fact and fiction. I know the difference between a schematic that represents reality, and reality itself.
I know how to use my eyes.
I know how to take hundreds of pages of data, and isolate the incongruities.
I know how to follow the scent of such incongruities to discover what might have motivated them.
In any public policy movement, such as this RUPCO project, there are stakeholders. There are costs and benefits. Every interested party wants to highlight some facts and downplay others. That's fine, and that's the way the process works. But when one party actually misrepresents reality, which Creighton Manning did, and which Guy Kempe has tried to defend, we have a very big problem.
Guy Kempe has stated that I have an outcome in mind, for this project. I think it is safe to assume that he means that I do not want the project built. But I remind him and everybody else, that I DO have an outcome in mind, which is the purpose of this blog, and that is to keep the town safe, whatever that means for the project. That means that the standard by which I judge the facts is safety, and that I maintain that safety CAN be defined, and measured, and MUST be present in any plan that breaks ground in this town.
Onward, though, to defend my honor and qualifications.
This RUPCO project is not simple. It involves all kinds of disciplines. All kinds of interests have to negotiate with one another. It is as important to know the motivations of each participant as it is to look at the facts they present, since it is extremely naive and dangerous to assume that ANY information, quantitative or otherwise, can be presented free of bias. I have experience working in public policy, on large projects with many stakeholders.
I have worked on public policy efforts much larger and more complicated than this one. I have worked for the national governments on four continents, for the US Department of Energy Policy Office, the EPA, and the United Nations. At the United Nations, I managed a program that sought to reduce pollution from transportation sources in cities, using private investment AND city resources. This meant that I had to understand how and why it is difficult to limit car use, to build a subway system, to make a dedicated bus lane, to limit driving or parking. All of these policies have technical and political and economic consequences. Reading documents with all of these things in mind simultaneously is key to not being fooled by some engineering study that purports to be "simply" a traffic study, and I know how to do that. That's why I found the discrepancy in the Creighton Manning study.
No, Guy Kempe, I have not spent my career measuring rural intersections and counting cars, but when that is what is called for, I know how to do that. When you stand at this intersection and look, you feel that this is a hazardous intersection. The Woodstock Times article makes that clear. It's not just my opinion. But what I am qualified to do, as a policy analyst with a brain trained to pinpoint key metrics, is that I can search until I find the documents that DEFINE safety, and compare the metrics to the project plans. And so that is what I did. I learned how to define safety. And I defined it. And I compared it to RUPCO's plans. And I discovered that in fact RUPCO has ignored key elements of safety in its plan.
There are no secrets here. Anybody can do what I did in this blog. Most people are overwhelmed by the amount of information there is, however, and they don't think they can. The beautiful thing about research and analysis is that you learn as you go. Even if you are unqualified when you set out to get to the bottom of something, if you stick to what is logical and true, to what is legal and able to be proved and confirmed along the way, then by the end, you have learned, and that is why you ARE qualified, by the time you have your answer. So pour a whole shaker of salt on my findings. Go back to square one and do all the research again. That's fine with me. I will defend what I have learned and written, because it is sound.
I am not the one who "can't account for" omissions, and who needs some abstract standard by which to measure the logic of somebody else's statement. That's Guy Kempe. He is the director of community development for RUPCO, and he is not going to misdirect THIS community.
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:
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.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
25- Surprise! Change of Venue for Public Hearing
I have been speaking to a reporter from the Woodstock Times for a couple of days. He is working on a story about RUPCO and our favorite intersection that should be in print in tomorrow's paper. Around 5 PM today he informed me that somebody from the town offices let him know that the Jan. 14 public hearing will be held at the community center, not at the town offices, as previously advertised. So, MY notice came 24 hours in advance. I called up the leader of the opposition group, SAGE, and she said that nobody told her. The town, or the planning board, or whoever called this shot clearly does not have the courtesy to inform the LEADER of the official opposition group that the venue has changed. I characterize that as worse than discourtesy. I would call it malice. The venue has been changed on the official town calendar on the website, but who consults such a thing when it has been clearly stated that the hearing would be at the town offices? Maybe an obsessive compulsive person, but not a normal person. The right thing to do would have been for the town to have alerted some interested parties, in addition to the newspaper. Let's see if the town posts a sign at the town offices prior to 5 PM tomorrow to tell people to go over to the community center instead. (Hint to the town: post a sign! It's the decent thing to do!)
See you tomorrow at 5 PM at the community center!
See you tomorrow at 5 PM at the community center!
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
24- Public Hearing Notice
You are cordially invited:
January 14
5-7 PM
at the Woodstock Town Offices (45 Comeau Drive)
(Jan. 13 update: now, it's scheduled to be at the community center... see post #25 for details)
This is when and where the next public hearing on RUPCO's proposed project will happen. I received a letter notifying me of this public hearing because I am a "contiguous neighbor" of the proposed development.
Personally, I think everybody in town, or at least everybody living in the hamlet of Woodstock should receive notice of this public hearing, since it will mean an increase of the hamlet's population by something like 12%. That's a huge impact on life in town, in vehicle traffic, and in other ways as well. The addition of actual people AT the site seems to be ignored in this very narrow targeting of potential participants.
the planning board will also accept comments in writing up to the date of the public hearing. I don't know where to send emails, but I assume you can send letters to the planning board at 45 comeau drive, woodstock, ny 12498. Fax number is 845-679-8743.
In addition, if you would like to review the project plans, they are available on Monday and Thursday, 9-5, at the Planning Board Office, which is the smaller building behind the garage at the town offices, at 45 Comeau Drive. I believe there is also a copy of the latest set of plans in the town clerk's office, and that copy would be available in a little more of a user friendly window, but I won't swear to any of that. (As usual, please correct any inaccuracies in the comment area.)
What is interesting about this public hearing is that we will not be allowed to speak about the corner of Playhouse Lane and Route 212 because, although the project will send hundreds of cars per day through that intersection, it is not technically PART of the "site plan." It is, get this, part of the "environment" that the project will affect.
It's good to consider all sides of an issue, so if you would like more information from citizens who are interested in the potential negative effects of this project (because, face it, all of the positive effects, real and imagined, are going to be trumpeted by RUPCO,) there will be an organizational meeting this Sunday, Jan. 10, in the evening. To find out where this meeting is, and what time, please email me at this address by early afternoon Sunday:
sendrobinemailnow[atsign]yahoo.com
Please do not use this email address at any other time, since I usually just delete most messages without opening them.
Monday, December 28, 2009
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.
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.
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.)
Sunday, December 20, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
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.
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 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.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
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...
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...
Saturday, December 12, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
