Carytown Verizon Development - MORE Controversy - Dueling Traffic Analyses

Alright, apparently there are two distinctly different opinions on the impact some sort of retail development will have on the immediate traffic patterns in Carytown around the Verizon building.  According to this article in today's Metro Business Section [scroll down to "Carytown Place Traffic"], the developer's traffic engineer says the retail development will mean LESS traffic at and around the site than the former Verizon commercial use generated.  Here's the quote:

...the evening peak hour traffic would drop 'resulting in an overall traffic reduction during the most congested period of the week.'

On the other hand, the opposition's traffic engineer says the developer's engineer used the wrong standards and the peak hour traffic will be 309% higher than that estimated by the developer's traffic engineer.  According to the article:

Instead of basing the traffic report on established traffic patterns for the type of business developers have asked to be zoned for, it [the traffic engineer] used the criteria for the current zoning.  [Emphasis added].  

Personally, I just don't find it remotely plausible that a retail use - be it Wal-Mart, Whole Foods, Best Buy, whatever - would generate LESS peak hour evening traffic than when Verizon used 10 N. Nansemond Street as an office building.  And with a number of one-way streets and single lane each way residential roads as access points, it makes even less sense to me.

But I am not a traffic engineer, nor do I play one on TV.  I DO think the  reviewers in the administrative process - whose responsibility is to represent the public, not competing commercial interests - should carefully review the analyses of BOTH traffic engineers and the standards upon which they are based.  It's no surprise that the experts for each side are reporting results which support the outcome their respective clients want.  But if the allegation by DRW Consultants is accurate, and there would be a significant increase in evening peak hour traffic, the community has a right to know that.  Decisions must be made on reasonable assumptions that are more likely than not to result.

Comments

[Melissa Loughridge Savenko]

Love it, FG. Okay, based on your suggestion, I shall now refer to the "opposition's" traffic expert as Ellwood's Traffic Expert. But if we're going down THAT road let's be fair and note that Timmons Group also has a pretty strong incentive to come up with results that favor Carytown Place like....ummm...they might get hired to do the engineering work, traffic and otherwise, on the project if it gets approved?

And please don't suggest that snarled traffic on one way streets in a (largely) residential neighborhood = successful vibrant city? Not I, said the cat. Responsible development = good. Irresponsible development = bad, IMHO. Reasonable minds can disagree, but let's also be honest about the developer's objective. They are in this to make money, pure and simple. There is absolutely NO altruistic principle in their motivations. If citizen participation in the process can lead to a "better" development for the community as a whole, I am all for that.

But I welcome the intellectual discussion. I'm starting to suspect you just might like me. [;)]

[FanGuy]

Can we just dispense with silly games and and refer to them as Ellwood's Traffic Expert" instead of "the opposition's traffic expert." We all know who is paying for the "grass roots" opposition.

In other news, vibrant cities have cars, people, and traffic. Film at 11.