The Deering Oaks Plan: Myth, Reality
This is not pretty: the "nuts and bolts" of how things were done in Deering Oaks
A reading of the beginning of the Peninsula Traffic Study gives one the impression that the authors and participants were considerate, collaborative, conscientious and honest in their efforts to "improve" the Oaks.
Keep reading.....stop hoping.
Stated desired results:
Unify park.
Increase pedestrian access to park.
Increase quality of life in neighborhood.
Increase mobility of traffic.
Decrease pollution.
Myth:
Traffic is “high speed” through neighborhood .
Rose Garden was “cut off” from main park in “recent decades” by
road
extension: Route 77.
Access to park from peninsula is difficult because of 6-lanes-wide Park Ave.
Increasing width of Park Ave. to 8 lanes will increase access from peninsula.
Loss of level of service of intersections is better for Parkside
area and
Portland.
Loss of 46% of on-street parking is good for the high-density neighborhood.
Congesting traffic is a good traffic control measure.
Project “may improve” air quality.
Reality:
Traffic is going 25-30 mph (in 25mph zone); not high speed
Road extension existed 45 years before Rose Garden. Garden
designed for
that
space; installed 1933.
Access to park is as easy as it is going to get because of lights and crosswalks.
Increasing width to 8 lanes does not increase access if 6-lane
street is too wide
now.
Loss of level of service of intersections creates congestion,
accidents, and air
pollution. Would be violation of FHWA, MDOT, EPA, MDEP, NHTSA, and
NEPA, to
name a few agencies, regulations.
Widening of road will require cutting of over 31 trees along Park St. to
comply with roadway engineering standards.
Loss of 46% of on-street parking is not good for high density neighborhood.
Congesting traffic is not good traffic control; is counter to national practices.
Air quality will decline drastically with decreased levels of
service and
increased delay. Violation of Clean Air Act and National Environmental
Policy
Act.
Methodology for fraud:
Present many conflicting facts; confusion works well to obscure truth.
Use the word “improvements” to denote changes,
even if a detriment, to
create
Use “may” in ambiguous situations, even when detrimental results
are
expected, again, to create positive aspect.
Misuse of logic.
Ignore Maine DOT recommendations and findings.
Ignore Federal Highway Administration recommendations and findings.
Ignore national engineering standards and practices.
Ignore state law.
Ignore federal law.
For a detailed explanation of all this, we can go to Chapter 9 of the Peninsula Traffic Study, which is here.