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: Thu, 26 May 2005 07:53:18
Subject: [KCAL] LVEC Traffic & Parking - Item #8
Determination of Mode of Travel to the Proposed LVEC
Based solely on what I am about to discuss below, I would be rejecting this Traffic and Parking Report completely, and I would even be thinking twice about continuing with the services of the present consultant.
Please take a look at page 17 of the Traffic & Parking Report Phase I (TPRPI). We are told that "information from the Memorial Centre site visit was used to determine the mode of travel likely to be used by patrons of the proposed LVEC complex". The report goes on to say it did some modifications to reflect a 5,000 person attendance event. What were those modifications? We are not told, and we can make no assessment of the reasonability of these modifications.
We are told on page 17 that two other factors were used to calculate the modal share for the proposed LVEC, an enhanced transit service, and off-site parking facilities. We are also told about two factors on page 7 of the report. Is that "patrons who walk to off-site parking facilities" factor on page 7 the same thing as the "off-site parking facilities" factor referred to on page 17? Who knows. They are NEVER REVEALED to us or discussed as to how they were developed or where they came from.
Let's look at these fuzzy factors having to do with transit and off-site facilities.
Why would a report suggest using a level or percentage of transit service that does not exist now, and may not exist for years to come until it is built up over the years? We were told in Mr Arthur Gordon's presentation on April 20 at the Portsmouth Olympic Harbour that transit is at 3.8 % and has remained that way in the city since 1998. Certainly, for continuing viability, we need to look at future demands for the LVEC, which the report DID NOT DO. But we need to prepare the proposed LVEC site and its surrounding area for use and accessibility NOW. And where in the report were we told how or even whether transit patrons to the Memorial Centre were observed or tabulated? I suggest the report has NO DATA on transit use in relation to OHL games at the Memorial Centre. The 7% mode share for transit is purely HYPOTHETICAL AND WISHFUL THINKING. The parking strategy for the LVEC was then concocted from this totally unscientific ground.
And what about the factor used to adjust for off-site facilities? Mr Gordon inferred in his remarks at the public meeting on May 18, 2005, that he knew of NO STUDIES which addressed dispersed parking. He told an audience member that if they knew of any data, let him know after the meeting. Without a series of studies carried out and weighted for differing scenarios, and taking into account such factors as city size, population size, time of year, climate, quality of existing transit, distance of parking facilities from a venue, venue activities, parking costs, and a host of other considerations, there is NOTHING to base a reasonable prediction on. The modal share exhibited in Table 2.6 is nothing but a WILD GUESS. And the parking strategy for the LVEC was then contrived by Mr Arthur Gordon based on his secret machinations.
Furthermore, and this is a KEY POINT, there was NO CONSIDERATION for adjusting the travel mode percentages to reflect different types of activities or shows that an LVEC would provide. Basing the composition and habits of people attending an OHL game to those attending, for instance, a Charlie Pride show, or a Great Big Sea concert, or a Tragically Hip concert, is ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS. The demographics are completely different, and they require very different travel and parking considerations.
The modal share and traffic generation figures exhibited in Table 2.6 are based on nothing but a witch's brew of UNDOCUMENTED MODIFIERS, NONEXISTENT OFF-SITE PARKING STATISTICS, UNCOLLECTED LOCAL INFORMATION, MISATTRIBUTED DEMOGRAPHIC DATA, and PURELY WISHFUL THINKING.
Without properly and fully collected data, published data from documented case studies, and clearly stated and discussed modifiers, factors, and assumptions, the TPRPI should be summarily REJECTED as the basis of setting up a traffic flow and parking strategy for an LVEC anywhere in the city of Kingston.
Tune in tomorrow for a discussion of infrastructure and management controls for the proposed LVEC.
P.P.S. Feedback notes (excluding congrats) to date - from local citizens = 14 ; from city hall, council, or other = 1