Google
Kingston Concerned About the LVEC
Currently known as the "KROCK Centre"
Formerly the "Kingston Regional Sports and Entertainment Centre" or KRSEC
Formerly the "Large Venue Entertainment Centre" or LVEC
Home   News
Daily Points on Anglin Bay Site Traffic and Parking, #11
Traffic Counts

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)
From: Bruce Todd
To: "Gedge, Don" <dgedge@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor S Garrison <sgarrison@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor R Downes <rdownes@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor L Foster <lfoster@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor G Stoparczyk <gstoparczyk@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor B Pater <bpater@cityofkingston.ca>, Mayor H Rosen <hrosen@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor G Beavis <gbeavis@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor K George <kgeorge@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor G Sutherland <gsutherland@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor F Patterson <fpatterson@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor E Smith <esmith@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor S Meers <smeers@cityofkingston.ca>, Councillor B George <bgeorge@cityofkingston.ca>
CC: "Hickey, Sheila" <SHickey@cityofkingston.ca>, "Baldwin, Derek" <dbaldwin@thewhig.com>, gwallace@cityofkingston.ca

Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 07:33:36
Subject: [KCAL] LVEC Traffic & Parking - Item #11    

Traffic Counts

On page 5 of CastleGlenn's Traffic & Parking Report Phase I (TPRPI), there is a list of 58 intersections at which Mr Arthur Gordon says he obtained motor vehicle and pedestrian counts from the City of Kingston. All we know about this data from the report is that it depicts weekday afternoon peak hour conditions, and the data was collected sometime during 2000 to 2004 inclusive. None of this information is shown in the report or annexes. We don't know the days of the week, the seasons of the year, the actual hours, or whether the counts look good.

We are told that previous counts from the Kingston Downtown Action Plan were also incorporated into the report, but none of these counts are shown either, so we know nothing about their characteristics.

At the Portsmouth Olympic Harbour during Mr Gordon's presentation of the TPRPI on April 20, 2005, he was asked when traffic counts were taken. Mr Gordon's answer was - on Thursday and Friday nights.

From everything I can see in the TPRPI, the ONLY TIME traffic counts were taken in the immediate vicinity of the proposed LVEC by CastleGlenn Consultants were on THURSDAY NIGHTS.

Traffic information was collected on a FRIDAY NIGHT by CastleGlenn, but that was during a study of traffic at the MEMORIAL CENTRE on an OHL game night.

The only FRIDAY NIGHT traffic count shown in the report was for February 18, 2005 at Rideau and Cataraqui Street, fairly remote from the proposed LVEC site, and is of questionable applicability in this traffic study.

Traffic counts are shown on 16 sheets, 11 by 17, but these have all been manipulated and adjusted.

The report compares evening counts at four intersections near the proposed LVEC to afternoon peak counts at these intersections, determines a percentage difference in the two sets of counts, arbitrarily adjusts this percentage, then applies this percentage to ALL INTERSECTIONS IN THE STUDY AREA. This is ludicrous. The four intersections used to calculate this magic percentage are very close to each other and have similar surroundings. Intersections throughout the downtown are located in vastly different surroundings and are comprised of very different functional roadways. You CANNOT DO a blanket assignment like this unless the intersections all have very similar characteristics. The difference between the amount of traffic from three to four p.m. at the intersection of Princess and Ontario Street and the amount of traffic between 9:30 and 10:30 p.m. at that same location would or could be quite different percentage-wise than a similar comparison at the intersection of Rideau and Bay, and different again at the intersection of Queen and Clergy, and so on.

Point 3 on page 5 says that the weekday afternoon peak hour volumes were adjusted, as traffic counts were not performed on the same date. But adjustment factors vary from intersection to intersection. And about the only way to find an intersection's adjustment factors is to take seven-day counts using road hoses on the approaches to the intersection, and the city hasn't been doing this. The city doesn't have daily adjustment factors for its downtown intersections. So what did Mr Gordon use?

In the Business Plan we are told that traffic in the downtown is only a third of what it is in the summer time. Note that traffic counts around the proposed LVEC were taken in November. Did Mr Gordon make adjustments for this huge difference between winter and summer traffic? Not that I can see in the report. So WE HAVE NO IDEA what traffic conditions will be like in the downtown for a concert in June, July, or August.

And how did the consultant determine how much traffic would be descending upon the downtown from which directions? I don't know.

And how did the consultant assign this LVEC traffic to the various turns at all these 49 intersections depicted throughout the study area? He tells us at point 10 on page 7 - "Traffic distribution assumptions were developed that depict the vehicle turning maneuvers on public roadways approaching the LVEC". THERE ARE NO WORDS TO DESCRIBE THIS TRAFFIC ENGINEERING VOODOOISM!

Several important intersections were not analyzed in the report and I'd like to know why.

The intersection of Wellington Street at Barrack Street is an important one, especially as Barrack Street is the through Street and there is no traffic signal here. What will it be like getting pedestrians across this intersection to parking lots south of here?

The intersection of Barrack Street at King Street will have to handle a large amount of traffic as pedestrians will be moving through it to the south and east, and motorists will be trying to get onto Ontario Street and cross the Causeway. In fact the intersection of Ontario Street at Barrack Street is another major node in crossing the Causeway. Why were these intersections not analyzed?

Why was traffic flow out of the Chown Garage or the Hansen Garage not studied? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the report did not want to reveal this information to the Planning Committee in their deliberations of an OP and rezoning amendment?

Why was there NO TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTED ON A FRIDAY NIGHT IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED LVEC, since most OHL games are played on a Friday night rather than on a Thursday night, and since stores are open late on FRIDAY nights, NOT THURSDAY nights?

Why were pedestrians, streaming down the streets into or out of the proposed LVEC, left out of the analysis of intersection capacities during the pre-event and post-event peak hour?

Why was there no parking data collected for a daytime trade show that would open at 10:a.m.?

Why was there no data collected and analyzed for a Saturday evening event at the proposed LVEC?

If anyone on council can still say that all these assumptions and secret factors and undisclosed methods and anticipated values and uncollected traffic data and unanalyzed traffic situations are clear and accurate and complete enough to lead us to accept the resultant recommendations made in this report, then you have never read the report and you don't care what is in it anyway.

Bruce.

P.S. Feedback notes (excluding congrats) to date - from local citizens = 17 ; from city hall, council, or other = 1

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)