<div>Don't have time at the moment to go into detail, but raw average crossing track was 7049 trips per day when I ordered the count fall 2005. Can't quickly locate the information about average trips per day, but based on my admittedly faulty memory it is basically 2 trips per bedroom for apartments. That would
<u>very roughly</u> total approximately 300 trips based out of proposed condos. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Will get more concrete data and send out soon when I get time to go back and check my data. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Vern<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/31/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Alice Ewen Walker</b> <<a href="mailto:alice.ewen.walker@gmail.com">alice.ewen.walker@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Thought I'd toss in what I could regarding a couple of items raised in<br>the thread:<br><br>- The December meeting re-cap from M-UTC that Vernon just posted
<br>summarizes the differences between what's proposed and the previous<br>proposal from Patriot Group.<br><br>(Note- the building set-back variance Dwight mentioned does not have<br>anything to do with adjacent buildings -- it is a variance that would
<br>allow building closer to the train tracks. The development is in<br>compliance with setbacks for adjacent properties.)<br><br>- The Town did a traffic count in the last year to track how much<br>traffic is crossing the railroad tracks. It's very high and the great
<br>majority of it is traffic originating outside of the town. (In my own<br>view, if we want to reduce traffic, it would be through limiting<br>through-traffic. Reducing new construction is not going to make much<br>of a dent in our traffic woes.)
<br><br>- As far as traffic goes, it is true that the M-UTC zoning simply<br>addresses the amount of parking that the development must provide.<br><br>However, as a result of earlier discussions about the traffic problems
<br>of this site, there was some redesign of the proposed entry to the<br>underground parking deck, based on community comment.<br><br>In Patriot Group's earlier proposal, they had put the driveway on<br>Lafayette, south of Riverdale Rd. Merging west onto Riverdale Rd from
<br>this location is very challenging during the morning commute. The new<br>proposal instead has the driveway off of Queensbury roughly across<br>from Natoli Place. I believe the town made them aware of the long-ago<br>proposed Natoli Place re-alignment, which the design tries to
<br>accomodate/fit with, should it happen in the future.<br><br>During the first round of discussions with Patriot Group, the<br>developer hired a firm to do a traffic and parking impact analysis -<br>presumably the town has a copy of the report.
<br><br>Would be great if someone could post the figures from the traffic count.<br><br>- Alice Ewen Walker<br>_______________________________________________<br>TownTalk mailing list<br>To post to the list, send mail to
<a href="mailto:TownTalk@riverdale-park.org">TownTalk@riverdale-park.org</a><br><a href="mailto:TownTalk-request@riverdale-park.org">TownTalk-request@riverdale-park.org</a> is for automated subscription processing only<br>
<a href="http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk">http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk</a><br><br>For more information about Riverdale Park, visit <a href="http://www.ci.riverdale-park.md.us">http://www.ci.riverdale-park.md.us
</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Vernon Archer, Mayor<br>Town of Riverdale Park, Maryland