GIOELLO Nick R <br />From:CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail.com> <br />Sent:Friday, March 30, 2018 12:15 PM <br />To:GIOELLO Nick R <br />Subject:PDT 17-1 Rebuttal Testimony (Traffic) Please Confirm Receipt. <br />Date: March 30, 2018 <br />To: City of Eugene Hearings Official, c/o Nick Gioello, Associate Planner <br />From: CW Murchison, Member, CHPUD Joint Neighborhood Response Committee <br />Re: Capitol Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application (PDT 17-1) <br />This testimony from CHPUD Response Group Member, CW Murchison, directly responds to the "Technical <br />Memorandum Transportation, Exhibit G of the March 21, 2018 Response from Carol Schirmer" authored by <br />Damien Gilbert of Branch Engineering, dated March 21, 2018, which was submitted during the first open- <br />record period. Traffic Engineer, Massoud Saberian, has prepared his own PDF to respond specifically to Mr. <br />Gilbert. This testimony is intended to address some additional parts of Mr. Gilbert's response from March 21, <br />2018. <br />Mr. Saberian's report was specifically written to respond to the initial traffic safety report prepared by Mr. <br />Gilbert and submitted with the CHPUD application and to report on the traffic, road and safety conditions as <br />Mr. Saberian saw them based on his site visit, research, his vast professional experience and pictures <br />provided to show a wide variety of existing conditions. His report is very clearly applicable to Criteria 5 and 6, <br />concerning Traffic and Public Health and Safety/Emergency Access, respectively. His report also undermines <br />applicant and city engineer claims of safety and the ability of the road network to support a development of this <br />size, which directly relates to Criteria 7 concerning necessary infrastructure. <br />Mr. Gilbert has stated that a Traffic Impact Analysis was not required because it did not meet the applicable <br />criteria, but Mr. Saberian very clearly pointed out in his report in issue 14 “On Page 7 under Section 2.1.4 <br />Existing Traffic Speeds and Volumes, the report cites limited and partial data collection that was done between <br />4:00 PM on November 9th and 8:00 AM November 11th (Veteran’s Day). This is not common practice by any <br />traffic engineer since it is known that data collected on Mondays and Fridays as well as immediately before <br />and after a holiday or school in service days, does not provide accurate and representative data. Therefore, <br />the data presented is flawed and unreliable. Furthermore, for best Average Daily Traffic volumes, data is <br />collected for multiple days, especially if the development is controversial. The older data presented also, is too <br />old and does not represent present conditions.” Mr. Saberian has shown that the data the applicant used to <br />say that a Traffic Impact Analysis was not required was data that was collected following non-standard protocol <br />for the profession and is clearly unreliable and should be collected according to protocol before the conclusion <br />that a Traffic Impact Analysis is not needed can be reached. We have no idea if the applicable criteria to trigge <br />r <br />a Traffic Impact Analysis has been met or not. <br />Mr. Gilbert states that “the off-site roadway exceeds the city standard for clear lane width of 14ft”. This is a <br />dubious claim. Even with no parking signs added this is not guaranteed. Capital Dr from the 5-way stop to Alta <br />Vista is 18ft in width. This is the majority of the approach to the development site. 18ft-4ft=14ft. This shows <br />very simply that if there is anything in the roadway for any reason that is larger than 4ft wide then the clear lane <br />width standard is not met. There are also times when Capital Dr itself has been closed for utility work and other <br />reasons forcing the emergency access to the much less safe and less desirable route according to the Fire <br />Department. Pictures of these closure events have been submitted for the record previously. <br />1 <br /> <br />