The traffic impact and potential mitigations for surrounding development and neighborhoods is dependent on the exact location and type of connection to the existing roadway network. Any bridge connection from MTC to the existing roadway network will increase traffic along the connecting corridors, The increased traffic could negatively impact intersection operations and possibly create congestion throughout a corridor. Potential mitigation for such impact could be signal timing modification, lane additions at intersections, or ultimately widening of the connecting corridor.Some of us have been preaching over and over that once MTC's nose is under the Bells Bend tent, there is nothing stopping the rest of the camel of sprawl and traffic congestion from following. The report seems to support the argument that (absent comprehensive public transportation arteries), building a bridge to Bells Bend will increase traffic, negatively impact intersections, and then quite naturally lead to land-consuming car-oriented infrastructure like adding lanes and widening roads.
And you can extrapolate from there: even more traffic congestion, land development, and suburban sprawl to feed off the untrammelled growth. Detached, family-oriented residential properties around clogged intersections outside the Bend will likely give way to non-residential developments and the signage clutter and industrial/commercial top coat that characterizes busy exchanges.
UPDATE: A liege of the "empire" takes a stab at the report, summing up thusly:
the study recommends the [original 2008 May Town Center traffic study] analyses be revised before a final approval on the project.So, all the May Town Center Plan needs is revision?
UPDATE AGAIN: This sounds like a more critical point from the new traffic study than above SouthComm liege makes in his intepretation of it:
RPM’s review [a.k.a., new traffic study] indicated that the feasibility of certain improvements recommended in the [original MTC traffic study] is questionable, primarily because of right-of-way concerns. A more definitive determination on the feasibility of these improvements is desirable in order to better understand the potential for implementing the improvements.Sounds like to me the original study needs to be revised not to get approval but simply to construe whether MTC's improvements can even be implemented.
LATER UPDATE: Enclave commenter DG does the math between the original MTC traffic study and today's Planning traffic study on the MTC proposal and finds dated numbers that may put the taxpayer on a sharp hook in the end:
Interestingly, according to the Metro study, the original MTC proposal presupposes some $160 million in currently unfunded construction from the long term traffic planning study of 2003. Of the five items on the LTP list, two were scheduled for 2016 completion, two for 2025, and one for 2030.
I'm assuming those estimates were in 2003 dollars, so boost that by some $30 million (or more, since the projects aren't going to be built soon). The May family and their paid shills would put the taxpayer on the hook for all of it. And it STILL wouldn't take care of traffic for a fully built MTC.
Interestingly, according to the Metro study, the original MTC proposal presupposes some $160 million in currently unfunded construction from the long term traffic planning study of 2003. Of the five items on the LTP list, two were scheduled for 2016 completion, two for 2025, and one for 2030.
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming those estimates were in 2003 dollars, so boost that by some $30 million (or more, since the projects aren't going to be built soon). The May family and their paid shills would put the taxpayer on the hook for all of it. And it STILL wouldn't take care of traffic for a fully built MTC.
Read through the whole thing. I think it's the nail in the coffin of MTC as proposed. Either the thing is way scaled down, which destroys its justification as a Cool Springs within Metro's borders, OR somebody is going to have to spend hundreds of millions and get community approval on a new bridge, massive infrastructure improvements, and a public transit plan that ties it into MTA. Who is paying for that? Not the Mays, at least not without taking most, or all, of their profit away.
ReplyDeleteThe dismissal of the image of happy bike commuters pedaling through a nature preserve on their way to high tech jobs is one of the funniest pieces of the new study. Pedestrian/bicycle commute would have ZERO impact on traffic.
"today's Planning traffic study on the MTC proposal and finds dated numbers that may put the taxpayer on a sharp hook in the end"
ReplyDeleteFor the record, it goes further than that.
P.3 of Technical Memo #2 gives a chart of current transportation planning initiatives. That's where the $160 million comes from. I was wrong about the original date of the LRTP-- it's actually 2005. So in 2008 dollars, that $160.1 million is only $175 million. Who knows what the actual build cost in the future will be.
But the key is this, from Tech Memo #9, p.2:
"The MTC TIS recommends that the “roadway improvements identified in the LRTP
through the year 2025… be constructed as planned.” There are approximately 370
improvement projects identified in the LRTP through 2025 and many of these are
currently unfunded. It is certainly questionable that all of these projects will be
constructed."
We pay for roads as we go in this state. Maintenance gets deferred. Yet the original MTC traffic study presupposed massive infrastructure improvement just to get to its OWN conclusions... which this new study says won't actually work with one bridge, or at full build-out, with two bridges.
This thing is dead as a doornail. The May family and their shills in the pro-developer community won't acknowledge that, but the presumption of public money just doesn't add up.