The priority list, which identified locations for further mitigation and priority, is shown in
Table 3 above. The prioritized order and treatments were developed based on data collected from visits to the field, laneage/geometry, and cost in addition to the FHWA guidelines score. The highest priority “N” on N Peachtree Rd near Chesnut Elementary warrants a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) because it provides a pedestrian refuge island and additional warning for vehicular traffic. In most other cases, the roadway widths and geometry provide enough space for pedestrian refuge islands for high vehicular and pedestrian volume areas. In addition to the RRFB and pedestrian refuge island treatments, other recommendations have been made in Table 3 for improvements to existing crosswalks for crosswalks that warrant pedestrian facility enhancements and others that warrant a marked crosswalk only.
These additional enhancements and maintenance include striping stop bars, widening pedestrian sidewalk pads, removing and replacing existing crosswalk striping, installing new sidewalks, complying with ADA guidelines, adding pedestrian and advanced motorist warning signs, and using
police enforcement to slow traffic and enforce parking codes. Table 3 shows the priority rankings and the treatment recommendations for each intersection.
In its assessment of Dunwoody Elementary, this (piece of garbage) report states, “The school [Dunwoody Elementary] has approximately 10-20 students that walk to school.” I can indisputably inform you there are more than 10-20 students who walk to school at Dunwoody Elementary. Furthermore, this report recommends REMOVING the crosswalk in front of the school! What are your thoughts on this? How much did the city spend/waste on this report? Knowing their data is wrong, I have no faith in any of their suggestions or observations. This seems to be yet another report the council can look towards as a means of obfuscating its responsibility to use common sense. Even (falsely) assuming there are only 10 students who walk to school, following the advice from this report would help to ensure pedestrians are ignored on Womack Road for years to come. Remember when Mayor Davis asked that the crossing guard in front of Dunwoody Elementary be removed because he was supposedly causing traffic delays? Remember when you and others offered to look at lowering the speed limit in front of the 3 schools on Womack (which is not even a suggestion in this report)? This is yet another wasteful study. Sure, this report is just a suggestion, but this council often relies upon reports when it’s politically convenient to ignore residents’ concerns.
ReplyDeleteWhy on earth would Dunwoody City Council REMOVE the crosswalk in front of Dunwoody Elementary School?? This is just one of the craziest things I have ever read??
ReplyDeleteAnd where are the sidewalks for Vermack Road??? A residential street near a school and still no sidewalks planned?
I agree completely with Joe on the number of walkers going to DES in the mornings. Definitely more than 10-20.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, given the fact all of DES' attendance zone is south of Womack (with the exception of Lakeland Woods and Oakhurst Walk, and the townhomes way on the other side of Chamblee Dunwoody), one could argue that a crosswalk to the north side of Womack is probably not being used heavily and could be consolidated with the crosswalk at Millstream Court as mentioned in the report.
However, even if they did, I would imagine anyone living in Lakeland Woods or Oakhurst Walk is just going to cross the street there anyway as opposed to walking up the hill to Mill Stream Court and back down again.
It was pointed out to me that the crosswalk at Lakeland Woods is not the one proposed for removal; it is the one closer to Tilly Mill at the eastern driveway that is proposed to be removed. In fact, the crosswalk at Lakeland Woods is proposed to be enhanced with a pedestrian island and new lighting. Given that both of these crosswalks are in such close proximity, removing one of them makes sense to me.
ReplyDelete