Earlier this week staff provided the City Council the draft Dunwoody Trail Master Plan so that we could be ready to discuss it on Monday April 24th, therefore I thought it only fair that this public document be disseminated for all to review.
I have raised my objections in the past, to the planned 10 to 12 ft wide concrete paths planned in front of single family homes as I believe it is an obtrusive overstep of property rights by filling the allowed right of way with excessive concrete which limits greenery & beauty. These types of projects negatively impact the immediate homeowners and adjacent communities by removing trees & vegetative buffers whereby I do not believe the juice is worth the squeeze.
What if that was your house in the path of that project and City Hall wanted to move forward. I see it as an over step & no one should have to suffer that much for the possible "greater good". This week I have heard from several residents of oversteps by "City Hall" (or a contractor) which clear cut and disseminated their property far more than was was needed in or to make the project easy for the construction crew. These big trail master plans are not engineered, we have no clue as to the greenery that will need to be removed, we have not openly discussed with the affected residents, have not discussed the financial considerations or lower cost options, yet the word I received was that this plan could be on the May 8th agenda for formal action including possible approval.
There are plans for a 10 foot greenway path along N Nancy Creek whereby this path would cut through the backyards of peoples homes, if Council approves such a plan are we planning on eminent domain takings from our own citizens? There is another section of 10 foot concrete greenway along the Doraville / Dunwoody border where Doraville just approved numerous town homes on their side of the creek and the Dunwoody homes directly adjacent to that creek already has a flooding history, but hey lets add more impervious surfaces near these homes because they don't suffer enough.
Tonight I am talking to a neighborhood to address their concerns of these plans and their one main question is... Are we the City of Dunwoody forcing "gated communities" to allow open access to proposed trails? My answer is No but I am only one vote of seven - it is hard for me to make promises for this or any future councils.
Trail access points are being proposed near Dunwoody Elementary where they do not currently exist which may completely change student drop off routines, placing numerous cars entering a small cul-de-sac where no one drives now. The plan is to control that public street where anyone can drive, with signs asking them politely not to do that. I'm not sure this public street access issue is easily controlled with just signage, because if signage worked then so would the “No Through Traffic - Local Traffic Only” signs.
This trail master plan document is in direct conflict in a number of points with the bond referendum documents released last week, based on where specific trails should and should not be.
This draft Trail Master Plan also envisions "calm streets" with forced traffic calming measures like speed humps. We currently have a traffic calming policy that is data driven and requires neighborhood buy in. The report lists several "calm streets" locations where there are no existing sidewalks and in neighborhoods where I have personally heard from neighbors where they do not want these types of measures in their quiet neighborhoods. Based on the text of the Plan as quoted below, these types of measures would need to be removed and maybe just regular 6 foot sidewalks installed instead?
Calm streets are located where both traffic volumes and speeds are low; they are designed in collaboration with neighbors to give priority to pedestrians and bicycle riders. Calm streets work best where there are already sidewalks or where sidewalks can be included. (page number 14 or page 20 of 88).I appreciate the research done by the Path Foundation but I don't think this report is ready for prime time, let alone ready for approval for full implementation. Just my 2 cents.
Our next meeting is Monday April 24th at 6pm and I will know for sure by Thursday of this week if this subject is going to be added to the official City Council agenda for discussion.
1 comment:
John-
Your views on the the specific examples are very valid. While those details (location of paths, size of paths etc.) are very much up for debate, I'm more curious what your view is of the need for a connected trail system in the city of Dunwoody overall, because I feel like so many people in the city are either anti-trail system or NIMBY-pro trail system (they would support it, but not if its near them).
I think while people have legitimate concerns on some of the path locations, how much space/width the path might be, vegetation loss....for those of us that use the current paths, sidewalks, and streets of Dunwoody, I can attest that the walkability, access with out driving, and safety for pedestrians in this town is poor.
I've lived in 5 cities in 5 different states over the past 15 years, running weekly in all of them, and Dunwoody by far is the most dangerous for pedestrians. I am nearly hit by a car every other week while running in Dunwoody. The only places I'm 'safe' are on large marked trails, inside of parks - not average existing sidewalks. Thy city's sidewalks (if you can find them) are mostly narrow and crumbling, covered with sticks, pine straw, and sweetgums creating a hazard for those on foot but also requiring more attention and thus less attention given to the cars. Vegetation is over grown on nearly all over this city's sidewalks, furthering issues with safety and visibility for cars and pedestrians. Street crossings are seemingly ignored by drivers even while well lit and marked, for everyone is in a hurry and never seem to think about looking for pedestrians.
I have 3.5 year old son, and there is no safe way for us to access a city park without driving. I live .74 miles as the crow flies from Waterford Park.... but we have never been there because if I'm going to get in my car, why not go to larger park or city center like Peachtree Corners or Alpharetta. We also live .74 miles as the crow flies from Windwood Hollow Park, which we do go to (only by car). I have a really great running stroller... but I can't even use it unless I (again) get in my car and drive somewhere to a path because sidewalks can't accommodate a stroller, at least not on the East side of town.
When my son is able to ride a bike, I don't feel safe having him bike to a park. There is no save access for me and family. By the time he is old enough for me to feel safe about him biking that far, he will have likely out grown Windwood Hollow, maybe all parks for that matter.
All of this to say that I feel like many residents in this city don't want to change and build for the future, they want Dunwoody to be as it has been, for them and them alone. I
I say all this because I'm very passionate about having SOME trail system and I don't want this to path project to die or be delayed (I've lived through the horribly slow process of the current Winters Chapel path, I don't want to wait another 5 years to just get a quarter mile of pavement) because of a few 'details'.
I, like many working aged residents, can't make city council meetings, so I appreciate your site and social media presence as a communication channel. I have attended a few of the meetings/townhalls for park but gosh is it over crowded with nay-sayers and not problem solvers. I just don't want the loudest voices to win, I want the best ideas for this city to win, creating a solution to benefits walkability, safety, while balancing individual's concerns.
Post a Comment