Mr. Heneghan:
Thank you for
sharing the results of your inquiry. I
stand by my position that there seems to be strong inertia that is resistant to
change with regard to areas of traffic concern, and while I think that an
element of this resistance is in the service of public policy (especially when
acting in promotion of fast emergency service response), I believe that the
barriers to change are too great. I will
concede that with regard to this process, my sample size is only one
(Stonington Road), but I feel compelled to share some of the elements of that
partially completed journey that gave rise to my frustration.
1. The problem is not always speed
alone. There is a three-way stop at Stonington Road
and Huntington Circle. This stop sign is
regularly disregarded at speeds which are not in excess of the limit. At the outset of my attempts to make
Stonington more safe, I set forth three issues, high speeds, ignoring stop
signs, and illegally cutting through the neighborhood. The feedback that we received initially is
that the stop sign was placed in a high visibility area on a straight run. As such, the tongue-in-cheek solution
initially proposed by Mr. Smith was that we take the stop sign out, and thus
all of the law-breaking goes away. To
his credit, he did not dig his heels in on this position, but rather
recommended a study. This study was
conducted on a non-school day, and revealed that the 85th percentile
speed at the study point was 34 miles per hour (9 miles above the speed limit,
which was insufficient to force further attention from the city). To the city’s credit, however, multiple solutions
were provided, but without a “preferred solution”, which left the debate up to
the neighbors in the “affected area”, and created enough diversity of opinion
that the project stalled. The only
guarantee given at the time was that the stop sign at Stonington and Huntington
would need to go, regardless of the project.
2. What is the affected area?
To determine who is allowed to vote on a traffic calming project, the “affected
area” must be determined. It is 65% of
the property owners in the affected area who must ratify a calming
project. In our case, we were provided
with multiple solutions, but without a preferred project from the city, the
affected area owners were simply expected to vote on the idea of traffic
calming rather than an actual project.
This caused considerable communications difficulties, as individuals
were resistant to losing the only potential mitigating factor in the area (the
stop sign), without knowing what was coming.
Additionally, I was told that the affected area could be as large as the
city wanted it to be because of the thoroughfare nature of the cut
through. While the city did the right
thing and narrowed the scope to about 18 homes, they made sure to inform me
during the process that they could have justifiably expanded this to a much
greater degree, and simply crush our efforts due to the scope of work that
would be required to seek approval from 65% of the property owners. Because there are minimal objective
guidelines when determining the affected area, this can easily be used as a
deterrent to change, especially in areas of high use.
3. The change process causes areas
of higher rental property or higher ages populations to be more resistant to
change, even if this is not the owners’ intent.
A major component of the traffic change proposition is that need for the
approval of 65% of property owners in a given area. As you well know, oftentimes property is held
by a trust, a corporation, a bank (for foreclosures), or an out of state
owner. No provision is contained within
the traffic calming policy to deal with this, nor is there a proposal to deal
with households where a spouse works elsewhere or lives in an assisted living
facility. The net effect of this
provision is to require wet signatures from 65% of ALL property owners, often
two spouses, or the children of the actual residents of the property, etc. This presents an undue burden on the process. Furthermore, as the City encourages aging in
place, it should be acknowledged that fixed income seniors who might otherwise
support a calming plan will likely be disproportionately affected by the $25
perpetual charge on the affected area residents for the improvements.
4. Signs may not be the most
effective deterrent to unsafe driving etiquette. The City acknowledged that the stop sign at
the Huntington and Stonington Road interchange is ineffective. The solution should not simply be to remove
or replace signs (as was suggested during the evaluation of options). Truly effective measures should be employed
when promoting safe traffic in Dunwoody.
More than once a week I see individuals on North Peachtree make an
illegal left into Chesnut Elementary School during school hours, blaze through pedestrian
crosswalks on Tilly Mill, and come screaming down Stonington on their way to
Tilly Mill. This is just a small sample
size, but each of these issues should be addressed by more effective means, including
perhaps road dividers in front of Chesnut, speed tables at the crosswalks on
Tilly Mill, and chicanes on Stonington.
Each of these solutions requires an associated expense, but I am of the
position that common-sense applications of these devices where warranted
ensures pedestrian and driver safety, and will likely save the city
considerable expense should a tragedy occur at one of these locations.
Thank you for
addressing this issue. I truly believe
that measures such as traffic safety, local zoning enforcement, and a local
police force are at the heart of what drove many voters to the polls in support
of cityhood. Let’s work together to find
a common-sense way to improve the city while avoiding arbitrary and capricious
traffic calming projects.
Kind regards,
Thomas O’Brien
Dunwoody
Resident
770-451-6646
