Beginning May 19th, 2005, Bruce Todd, who is supposed to be retired from a 40+ year career in traffic engineering, but nonetheless branded an "instant expert" by several pro-LVEC luminaries, none loftier than William Leggett, ex-principal of Queen's University, is briefing everyone about the field, pointing out "features" of the full Phase I Traffic and Parking Study prepared by CastleGlenn Consultants , who were hand-picked by Don Gedge for their "keen understanding of the Wellington Street Corridor" (pages 13 and 16 therein).
Articles in the Daily Points on LVEC Traffic and Parking series
|#1 - Concerns About the Content of Phase I (May 19)
#2 - No Pedestrian Counts in Intersection Analysis (May 20)
#3 - A Discussion of the Two Adjacent Parking Lots (May 21)
#4 - Drop Off and Pick Up Mode of Access (May 22)
#5 - Display Maps (May 23)
#6 - The Anglin Parking Lot (May 24)
#7 - Reporting of Available On-Street Parking (May 25)
|#8 - Determination of Mode of Travel (May 26)
#9 - Infrastructure and Management Requirements (May 27)
#10- Study Area and Study Data (May 28)
#11- Traffic Counts (May 29)
#12- Acceptable Walking Distance (May 30)
#13- Parking Availability and Key Factors (May 31)
#14- Clearance Time After an Event (June 1)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 08:00:34
Subject: [KCAL] LVEC Traffic & Parking - Item #5
I ask you to look at page 39 of the Traffic & Parking Report Phase I , Exhibit 3.8, which purportedly shows "the location of both 'municipal' and 'private' off-street parking lots within the downtown core (red dashed line) and the spill over [sic] parking on the outskirts of the downtown area (blue dashed line)". The zones from A to F, excluding I, are listed in Table 3.8 on page 41.
Exhibit 3.8: Note that the use of very similar non-contrasting colours in the legend. This is a scan of that page, and the similarity of the colours is NOT due to the quality of the scan, though the scan obviously doesn't help. The different types of lots are barely distinguishable in the original document.
One way to keep a person from following the logic of the report, or to not allow a person to check out information, is to leave out information on maps and diagrams and tables, or to show only a portion of what is being discussed in the report.
Why are some zones (L, H, and M) NOT shown with their FULL boundaries? There is no way to check the validity of the number of on-street stalls as reported in Table 3.8.
Why are some zones (J and K) MISSING COMPLETELY from the map on page 39? Again, no way to check out or get a feeling for the data being presented in Table 3.8.
Why is the zone, which is referred to as outside the spill-over area (last paragraph - page 41) and for which data is presented in Tables 3.9 and 3.10, NOT SHOWN at all on a map?
There is no worded description of the zone boundaries. The bottom line is that this report talks about areas of the city created specifically by the report authors, but it DOESN'T TELL YOU where some of those areas are, and it shows you ONLY PARTS OF some areas.
Look back to page 39, and examine the Legend in the top left corner of the map. Note in particular the colour coding used to distinguish different types of parking lots. Why would the authors of the report have used ALMOST THE SAME COLOUR for Municipal Parking lots as for Municipal Lots (1st Hr Free) and as for Municipal/Non-municipal (whatever that means)? Three different pieces of data in almost the same colour. (Note: the scan of the Exhibit 3.8 is less than perfect, but the legend colours are barely distinguishable on the original). Is it possible the authors didn't want you to see a clear picture of the parking lots to get a good feel for where they were in the surrounding area?
Now look at the red and blue dashed lines. Where a red and blue dashed line run together along a street segment, WHICH GROUP OR ZONE were the on-street parking stalls counted in?
Maps should show ALL zones referred to in tables. They should show COMPLETE zones referred to in discussions. And they should be coloured so as to DISTINGUISH READILY AND CLEARLY the differing pieces of data being displayed.
To me, this is AMATEURISH AND INCOMPLETE work, and it makes me wonder how complete and reliable the rest of the report is. I hope there was no intention to blur the data, and make it difficult for people to follow and understand this key report in the determination of the feasibility of an LVEC on the Inner Harbour.
THIS REPORT DOES NOT PAY ATTENTION TO DETAIL.
P.S. Feedback notes (excluding congrats) to date - from local citizens = 4 ; from city hall, council, or other = 0
The Flow of pages 41 and 42 -- Note the reference to, and the blatant misrepresentation of, "600m".
A proper 600m circle around the proposed LVEC showing the misrepresentation of the supply of unmarked parking on streets supposedly within 600m. Note that 600m is unheard of for parking planning purposes for this sort of facility. Usually the design maximum distance is around 450m.
Last updated May 23, 2005