|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
With a decision on the proposed Chapter 40B development at 970 Tucker Road in Dartmouth imminent, an important question remains unresolved: Does the current record demonstrate that the roadway will operate safely under projected conditions?
The Traffic Impact Analysis submitted for the project concludes that conditions will remain acceptable. That conclusion, however, is based on a study of a limited number of intersections rather than the Tucker Road corridor as a whole.
This creates two fundamental problems. First, the analysis does not assess six other intersections along the corridor that collectively serve approximately 396 residences. Second, it treats each intersection as if it operates independently, rather than analyzing how conditions at one location affect others along the corridor.
The analysis appears to use standard traffic modeling methods appropriate for individual intersections. However, the record does not show that those methods are sufficient to capture how traffic actually behaves along Tucker Road under heavier conditions.
Under light conditions, vehicles do move relatively independently. However, as volume increases, queues form at one location and propagate upstream, affecting adjacent intersections and access points. Delays compound, and the corridor operates as a system, not as a series of isolated points.
Subsequent review confirms what drivers already experience: Traffic volumes are projected to increase, and at least one key intersection is expected to experience degraded performance (LOS F) under future conditions.
This is not an argument against development, nor against Chapter 40B. It is about whether the record is sufficient to support a determination that the project can operate safely.
More broadly, this case illustrates how a specialized network of consultants, planners, and attorneys experienced in Chapter 40B permitting can shape the process in ways that place significant pressure on local boards, even when key technical questions remain unresolved.
The board is required to make its decision within a defined statutory timeframe. That makes it all the more important that the decision be based on a complete and fully developed record.
A decision of this consequence should not be made with fundamental questions left unresolved.
Lewis A. White is a resident of Dartmouth.
Why not have the traffic analysis peer reviewed?
The traffic analyses for this project may, in fact, be completely insufficient because of two reasons: 1. There are no contingencies considered in approved traffic studies for projects that “may” happen in the future that affects all traffic; an example being the proposed development at Whaling City Golf Course as an Advanced Manufacturing Campus is not considered in the traffic studies for this housing project for the only reason that the golf course project has not been approved by the City of New Bedford yet. Contingent and flexible planning and studying of traffic MUST include “what if” scenarios in order to be effective for future use, planning and project approvals by local governments. 2. The Hathaway Road traffic study didn’t even include Saturday traffic, and the study was done only on weekdays in November. This is a completely and inherently weak analysis of POTENTIAL traffic patterns that may result throughout any day of the week and during any period of the year.
Getting these studies to evaluate potential REAL traffic scenarios and contingencies will be the only way to determine the effect this project will have on traffic patterns and congestion along Hathaway and Tucker Roads.