Infrastructure Impact of Wal-Mart in the Fairhope Administrative Area:
Storm Water Run-Off and Traffic Studies.
The following paragraphs are a brief summary of the written questions submitted to the Fairhope City Council by citizens’ representatives and answered by representatives of the firm that prepared the individual studies.
Storm Water Run-Off Study
John Seeger, representing the citizens, asked six questions in four topic areas. All centered around the methodology and assumptions concerning the storm water run-off assessment and associated control measures. He noted that River Mill, an adjacent subdivision, has experienced flooding during severe storms and there was a fear expressed that the planned Wal-Mart and anticipated growth in the area around the big-box store would make the run-off situation worse, possibly to the extent of endangering other subdivisions down-stream from the site—Quail Creek for example. The discussion is organized around the topics
Topics A & B: Basis of calculation of run-off volume and allocation by drainage means
- All calculations were based on modeling of pre, post and future development conditions. The standard used in all calculations is a “100-year flood” condition (this exceeds the Fairhope planning requirement, according to engineers at the meeting).
- The detention pond is sized on the same standard. Total water volume is not the basis of the design capacity, as a portion of the water entering the pond will pass through rather than being retained. Water will be released more slowly than the natural flow and output volume downstream will be less because of the pond.
Topic C: Justification for the high volume of water projected in the future development calculation.
- “Worst-case” calculations were made. Although there are many requirements for green-space, the calculation was done on the basis of no permeability on the future development sites (essentially assuming that it will be surfaced like a parking lot). The design accommodates this condition in a 100-year flood scenario.
Topic D: Affect on Quail Creek subdivision
- Because calculations revealed that 10 percent or less of the run-off entering Quail Creek, would be from the Wal-Mart site, no analysis beyond that point was done. This is the standard practice. The responding engineer noted that run-off reaching Quail Creek will be less than current conditions due to better controls. He also noted that rainfall assumptions used in these calculations far exceeded the volume, duration and intensity of rain experienced by New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.
Traffic Study
The citizens’ group submitted 26 questions, organized into four major topics. The questions focussed both on the data collection technique and on the accuracy of the reported data. Several implicitly questioned the legality of the study contract and the very nature of the product – does it meet the legal standard of a traffic study? The author of the citizens’ document was not identified.
Topic 1: Focus on the legal requirements of a traffic study and the city’s permitting process. Implicitly questioned the legality of both the selection process and the sufficiency of the “study.”
- Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) requires 24-hour data collection only for proposed traffic signals. No such requirement for this study. Details on the data collection were provided by reference to the study and were noted as meeting all state requirements – and the state would be the approving authority.
Topic 2: Focus on the contracting process and source of funds and direction; qualifications of the selected contractor (Kimley-Horn) and methodology.
-The Fairhope Building Department met with the contractor and felt the company to be reputable and qualified.
- The methodology was standard practice and coordinated with ALDOT.
- (Selection and funding questions were not answered)
Topic 3: Focus on the traffic data collection and determination of peak periods on major roads in the impacted area. Questioned accuracy of pictures, stating that they and the study were not contemporaneous.
- All counts were taken by a professional traffic engineering firm using standard equipment and broadly accepted processes.
- Specific questions on details of counts were referred to the study – school traffic was included and peak traffic period was determined to be 4PM to 6PM.
- Time and date of all pictures were noted as December 2, 2005 – starting a about 10 a.m. The citizens’ group stated that they “obviously” were taken in summer.
Topic 4: The citizens’ group states that their traffic counts “vary widely” from the counts in the study and asks why.
- The response virtually repeated an earlier answer: All counts were taken by a professional traffic engineering firm using standard equipment and broadly accepted processes.
- The contractor concluded with, ”...we highly recommend that the unknown author retain a qualified transportation engineer to review the submitted reports. Answers to most of the above questions are already included in the submitted documents. If represented by a professional transportation engineer, the unknown author would greatly benefit in his/her efforts to provide comment on the traffic study.”
My Conclusions:
Nothing in the Q&A process revealed any definitive flaws in the analyses done by the engineering firm providing the two studies (Kimly-Horn).
The exchange concerning the water run-off calculations was useful in understanding how the study was done and the level of risk associated with accepting its conclusions. As an observer at the council meeting and having read the Q&A documents, I thought the written exchange added much to my understanding of the analyses as well as being responsive and professional.
The traffic study discussions at the meeting and the formal written questions were less useful. The questions rehashed details of the traffic report without showing much evidence of understanding of the process used to gather traffic data or in the practical application of those data to the real-world, on-the-ground situation.
The responses were no better and ignored the questions on who selected the prime contractor for the study and who paid for their work. The rumor mill attributed both actions to Wal-Mart. If true, this is not a shocking turn of events – as long as some other agency is responsible for directing their work and assessing the quality of the report. The contentious, legalistic questions on administrative procedures and contracting processes on the part of the citizens’ “unknown author” failed to develop any understanding of the quality of the study and the implications of its findings. The questions appeared to be aimed at setting the ground work for a legal challenge to the contracting process, rather than helping the public understand the study itself.
Contact Pete Gleszer at jubilee@lagniappemobile.com.
Archives
Jubilee
