Flawed Traffic Count Data

Tree Loss | Traffic Count Data Flaws | Credits | CONTACT City Council Members!

Flaws in the Traffic Count Assumptions and Modeling

Base Line Traffic Volume

Even at the root quantitative traffic measurement there is a problem. According to BCAG actual traffic count data in March 1998 9842 vehicles per day traveled down Manzanita. Jan 2001 the actual number was 10,447. Indicating a 2% per year growth rate. Logical, since the population grew by 2% per year.

Why then, do the study numbers begin at 13,000 per day?

At a 2% per year growth rate, that level will not be reached until the year 2013.

Traffic Growth Rate

And even then, the City appears to have applied a 4 - 5% per year traffic growth rate. More than twice the rate of Real Traffic Growth. More than twice the rate of Real Population Growth. And, more than twice the rate of forecasted population growth.

They even show traffic down Hooker Oak avenue growing at the same inflated rate. When in reality, Hooker Oak Avenue is a collector street into a (virtually) fully built out neighborhood. Why would that traffic grow by any significant measure?

The traffic modeling appears to show Peak Traffic occurring at all points of all intersections simultaneously. When in reality peak traffic in & from Hooker Oak park does not occur with the Manzanita Avenue peak times of 7-8am, 12-1pm, 2-3 pm & 5PM.

High School Traffic

Next, it is abundantly clear that that High School traffic into and out of PV accounts for a huge amount of traffic thru this corridor. Perhaps 10%-20% of the current traffic thru the corridor is associated with traffic from the SE quadrant (east of Hwy 99, South of Chico Creek) to PV High. Again, real peak traffic counts occur at school times 7-8am, 12-1pm, 2-5PM.

Look at the traffic thru this corridor on days when school is out, and you will find that it is as quiet as a Sunday morning.

The New High School in the South-East quadrant of Chico ought to significantly reduce this traffic source.

Non-Typical Roadway

Other apparent errors in the traffic modeling fail to exclude delays from "typical" traffic inputs. Simply meaning that the constrained section is NOT typical, in that it lacks the in & out traffic normally associated with houses/businesses along each side of the street. In reality it is parkland on one side, and very few houses on the other side. In this regard the section is atypical and asymmetrical, and provides less resistance to traffic flow than a typical road section thru a neighborhood.

Plan B Still Shines

Even if you accept the seemingly inflated traffic numbers: Plan B promises to deliver (at worst) a LOS (Level Of Service) of "C". This is within the City of Chico General Plan guidelines for Level of Service, and maintains the rural park feel of the area.

Next Page

Links:

REAL BCAG (Butte County Association of Governments) Traffic Count Data

Road Diets (narrower lanes & fewer lanes can be better)

Building Communities with Transportation

The Draft EIR from the City of Chico Reference Library

Compare The Manzanita Avenue Improvement Alternatives

05/02/02

Please Contact City Council With Your Thoughts On This Subject!

Suggestions or Comments on the Web Site, Please e-mail: manzanita@accsat.com