1
or. y Dc-vrr/s"
n
Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight and for agreeing to extend the
hearing so that all may indeed be heard.
Unlike a prior speaker, I am interested frogs, but there is room to disagree.
Personally, I value the role frogs play in the ecology of Sterling Forest. I also like
salamanders. And fish, raccoons, bear, Indiana bats - even rattlesnakes. But more
than all those, I value the people of Sterling Forest and the safety, health and well
being of my family and my neighbors. The DEIS in its current form leaves me
feeling that my values may not be fully shared by its authors.
Other speakers have focused on the critically flawed hydrologic analysis and
assessment of risk to our water supplies. I focused on the traffic and noise analysis
specifically as it relates to the Laurel Ridge community anci I find the DEIS
similarly lacking.
My principal traffic concerns relate to the likely effect on getting in and out of
Laurel Ridge at the intersection of Sylvan Way and 17 A. It is the eastbound traffic
on 17A that matters most, as that is the flow that usually challenges us when we try
to enter or leave Laurel Ridge. We already complain about the difficulty leaving
and the risks of entering from the blind curye that is 17 A, even when the
Renaissance Festival is not running.
The traffic analys^is focuses on peak hour comparisons to projected traffic.
Howeve'ffi,fitoi,.,ssionoftheoVERALLexpectedincreaseintrafficand
the effects that it may have, particularly on the number of accidents in the 17A
corridor. I believe this estimate of increased accidents is critical because each of
you need to understand the expected HUMAN cost of bringing this project on line.
Kimly Horn estimates that traffic counts for the various eastbound non-RenFair
peak hours will rise to 3 to 8 times the current level, depending on which peak is
considered. Now, there may not be large numbers of people trying to cross 17A to
get into Laurel Ridge during the peak hours, but it is ftrr from zero. And we appear
to have no information on the likely increase of traffic during times when school
buses are present, which is an analysis
hearing.
I specifically
requested during the scoping
The dramatic increase in eastbound traffic will make the difficult task of entering
Laurel Ridge even harder and more dangerous. The failure to estimate the impact
on accidents is not hidden by the assertion that the accident rate is ALREADY
above state averages, so some mitigation must be considered. And frankly, if the
accident rate for the 17A corridor is already above state averages, why are we even
considering multiplying the traffic peaks 3 to S-fold? The impact on the safety of
ingress and egress to Laurel Ridge generally and on the safety of school bus
transportation particularly must be revisited and reevaluated in the EIS. Failure to
do so means that you are consciously choosing to ignore a potentially serious
human cost of the project.
Of lower import but still of major impact is the noise study. The study used
receptor sites only nearest 17A in Laurel Ridge and found material degradation
could be expected. It dismissed the impact on Tichy Field, which seems ludicrous
the noise from traffic seems more likely to render the park unusable.
-
Moreover, as a speaker at the scoping hearing noted, sound rises and performing the
analysis at ground level omits testing where most of us actually live, which is at
higher elevations. And if you've ever heard the road noise from my house on Cross
Ridge Road on an otherwise quiet morning, you will understand why it is important
to perform the sound test comparison at the top of the hill as well. We don't just
live indoors.
a*^s#€ffi-
Like other speakers, I fbund the DEIS virtually impenetrJif;'i"#1T"ffi
discern major gaps in the analysis about things that really matter and conclusions
that felt mors like r,',rishful thinking than logical resuits The gaps must be remedied
and more time for review is necessary. Thank you.