It's all about the Traffic
¤ Back to the core of things, the presentation by LA DOT on Thursday night was a travesty. Not for what they said, but for how they were pressured into presenting numbers which were just plain wrong!Anyone who has taken Statistics 101 understands that using an "average" is completely inaccurate. Remember back in college when your professors would grade "on a curve"? Even though we hated it, there was a very good reason to use it. It was accurate.
Even if you did not go to college and take statistics, those of you with PHds (Pedro High Diplomas) can use enough common sense to realize that there are not as many cars on the road at 3am as there are during rush hour. Using the "average" number is the equivalent to saying there are. It's just not true. The formulas ("curves") worked out by the ITE tables accurately takes into account the differing number of cars at different times. This, in turn, allows the traffic engineers to more accurately predict how many cars will be on the road with a given change in the number of housing units emptying onto that road.
A very simple example can illustrate this. If you use the "average" that means traffic lights will be timed so that you are waiting for 3 minutes or more for the light to change in the middle of the night when there is not another car in sight. Conversely, it means that no matter how tight rush hour traffic has become, you still get only those same 3 minutes. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.
Whereas, the formula numbers will allow the traffic lights to be timed so that you can sail right through when you are coming home from that late night at work. And during rush hour the lights can be programmed to give the main artery more time to clear out.
But the biggest disaster was the fact that politicos stuck their noses into technical matters in which they have exactly zero expertise. Let LA DOT do their job. Let the Planning Department do their job. I trust Betsy Weisman over Gordon Teuber any day.
¤ On another note. I had previously submitted (on another blog) my ideas of what might work at Ponte Vista. I will eventually re-work that proposal and post it here. But for now I just wanted to say I was surprised that even with the jacked-around numbers, when LA DOT worked backwards they came up with a higher number of housing units for which traffic can be fully mitigated, than I proposed. I guess I have more work to do.
1 comment:
Howdy Tom,
The DEIR states that the ITE generated AVERAGE for owner-occupied, high-rise condominium, trip generation rate of 9,212 vehicles per day is the number I think you are referring to as the "accurate number."
I don't disagree with you on that at all and I am prepared to use that written fact, anytime.
Jay, the supervisor gave three sets of numbers, two of which were averages. The first one he reposted is the one from the DEIR dated November 2, 2006.
9,212 vehicles added per day, from Monday through Friday is what the DEIR states.
Additionally for readers, the DEIR stated the average ITE trip generation figure for Saturday's is 8,878 vehicles.
I was fairly surprised to hear Jay with his reasoning that he thought the owner-occupied, high-rise condominium table that is used in the DEIR was a table he thought was inappropriate to use for the Ponte Vista project. He had consistantly said that the numbers stated in the DEIR were accurate on what to expect.
I know he was asked to provide figures for Ponte Vista based on the Condominium-town house, owner- occupied table of the ITE. What I didn't expect to hear him say was that he thought that was a more logical table to use for the Ponte Vista project, than the owner-occupied, high-rise condominium table.
It was Jay's opinion, and I guess I'd have to go with a supervisor of the section of DOT that reviewed and approved the DEIR, who claimed that 12,252 might be a more reasonable trip generation count than 9,355 or thereabouts, which he claimed was the number from the more recent expectation.
If Jay had a change of opinion, then what does that suggest to you?
Do you think he might have been pressured by folks other than the CAC? If so, who and why?
The 12,253 number is pretty tough for me to sell too, because it is based on Jay's opinion and not on any other tangible fact. I think I am allowed to use it, if I explain it came from the supervisor of the DOT section that approved the original DEIR and it is base on a different table, not used for the DEIR. That, in my mine, is an honest account, don't you think?
In your comment about Betsy Weisman, I agree with you that she is more reliable than Gordon, but I have to side with Bob's opinion on the issue of a public road through Bob's property should R1 remain on the site.
I can't imagine any government agency these days taking private property for the benefit of another private property owner, especially if that owner is a religious entitiy.
MW
Post a Comment