|
My agency uses these studies to plan highways, make modifications, etc., and developers also commission them from traffic engineers. Sometimes, it seems the study will try to reach a conclusion that supports a goal of an agency or developer. One of the most memorable was done to examine a proposed break in the without access right of way of an interstate highway (in other words, make a new exit for a developer). The report had more traffic going into the mall than ever leaving, and when I asked the author about it he said, "we only care about traffic in, not out, those leaving can find their own way out" He concluded that the new traffic producer would have no effect on the local system, all is good. It was built, and he was right. Of course, in the time it took to pass the enviro stuff for the Feds, approve, fund and build, another new giant mall was built in the next county and split the traffic between the two. Enough traffic diverted to the new mall that the original mall's projected new flow never came.
My impression of the reason for and result of traffic studies is pretty much the same as Lubemaster. A lot of the work is done for pure boilerplate to support an overall design study, where the agency will propose 3 or 4 alternates for a new project. One is the golden child, and the others are so flawed that the public attending the hearings are so outraged that they gladly accept the proposed (and agency favored) first alternate. Usually one of the alternates will plow through a historic farm, or civil war cemetary, etc. Another will relocate a river or major stream, or split a neighborhood, you get the idea. After awhile, one tends to get a little cynical about the "public process"
|