Trust and accurate communication

South Fork Conservancy (SFC) has recently sent out their September newsletter. An article by Sally Sears provides an update on the Park Pride Visioning process. Is it an accurate report?  In total, the article indicates:

Park Pride Brings Trail and Creek Plan to Neighbors

"Ten months of Park Pride visioning is ending this fall with a plan supported by most neighbors up and down the creek. The work confirms core principles of respect for the environment, private property and obeying rules, especially dogs on leash. The route supported by most participants is already on the Park Pride website."

As one neighbor put it: “Three sentences – Three untruths. A pretty impressive ratio.”

Let's look at the assertions.
 “A plan supported by most neighbors up and down the creek”
Well not in any conventional understanding of “support” or “most”. This is spinning of impressive proportions. Here are the facts regarding neighborhood support for the proposed trails.  Three out of four of these facts were generated by South Fork Conservancy and Park Pride.

In a South Fork Conservancy survey explicitly designed to generate positive support for their recreational connected trails proposal, only 17% of respondents were dissatisfied with the greenspaces/parks status quo and wanted changes.

In the first public meeting, 81% of neighbors indicated that they were opposed to the plan as presented with only 19% indicating that they either supported the plan or needed more information.

In the fourth and final public meetings, 90% of all feedback from participants was opposed to the plan and critical of the Park Pride Visioning process.

The neighbors, in the areas between Lenox Road and Johnson Taylor Nature Preserve, conducted an electronic, auditable, and neutral survey of the three hundred homes directly affected by South Fork Conservancy’s proposed actions. There was a 29% response rate compared to South Fork Conservancy’s survey with a response rate of less than 1%. Of the respondents, 80% either opposed the plan (68%) or needed more information (12%) and only 20% supported the South Fork Conservancy recreational connected trail plan. Does 80% opposition sound like “a plan supported by most neighbors”?

When asked why they believe that there is support for their plan, SFC has indicated that their assessment is based on conversations in the neighborhood. When asked whether there is any evidence to back up their statement, SFC has indicated that they have no evidence.

The net is that there are four sources of publicly recorded data confirming that the maximum recorded level of support for the South Fork Conservancy recreational connected trails proposal over 10 months of discussion has been 20%. There is no other evidence to indicate otherwise. There is no conceivable way to accurately claim that this is “a plan supported by most neighbors up and down the creek”?

“The work confirms core principles of respect for the environment, private property and obeying rules, especially dogs on leash.”

If “confirms” means simply that the plan acknowledges that environment, private property and obeying rules are existing problems, then the statement is true. If “confirms” is intended to mean that the plan acknowledges and addresses the existing problems with environment, private property and obeying rules, then it is false.

Respect for the environment - The plan explicitly removes an amount of land that is currently unused by people and dogs and redirects it to recreational use. All the scientific research and field literature documents and confirms that increased trails leads to reduced wildlife populations and increased environmental issues, particularly paths in riparian areas where bank erosion is a particular problem.

The 2001 Atlanta Greenways Acquisition Plan acknowledges the importance of undisturbed riparian greenspaces: “Greenways provide a sanctuary within which living tissue live and multiply in space and time. Some of the species living within greenways are endangered or threatened. Greenways protect riparian corridors from human activities such as development, recreation, and resource extraction. This in return protects species that may be in danger of becoming extinct.” Converting protected greenspaces from undisturbed land to recreational use does not constitute “respect for the environment.” It is instead a value-based decision that recreational use is more important than environmental protection. SFC values recreational trail use above environmental damage.

This value judgment is in contrast to that of the Morningside Lenox Park neighborhood where conservation and environment are much more highly valued than recreational use. In Park Pride Visioning public meeting one, on April 10th, the neighbors prioritized the issues about which they were most concerned. Conservation and environment were the second most frequently cited issues of concern.

In addition, not only is the proposed plan harmful to the environment and wildlife, there are no plans for future maintenance. SFC has explicitly said that on-going maintenance is beyond the scope of their proposal. They believe the new trails will not be maintained by the City/County and their hope is that maintenance will be done by neighbors.

Considering all these issues, it is hard to characterize the current plan as respecting the environment.

Respect for Private Property – Numerous neighbors have expressed concerns about social trails which would cross private land, misread maps which would cause the public to intrude on private land (an issue reinforced by SFC having already repeatedly led group excursions across private property), and in general a loss of privacy and increased incidents of property encroachment. In some areas, such as Johnson Taylor, this is already a routine issue with off leash dogs entering properties to attack pets, people passing through backyards in order to reach the road, people entering gardens to pick flowers and fruits, etc.

Throughout the Park Pride Visioning process, SFC has asserted in both the public meetings and Steering Committee meetings that they were entitled to build paths along sewer easements (an extensive feature in this terrain). This assertion has been contradicted by City of Atlanta, County of DeKalb, and Parks Department personnel in both jurisdictions, as well as independent lawyers.

The current plan has no elements that address the protection of private property other than that in some locations they would place signs to better mark trails and in other places SFC has suggested that they might plant vegetation to serve as a screen. The primary element in the plan to protect private property has been the repeated suggestion on the part of SFC and Park Pride that the onus for property protection resides with neighbors and that they ought to build fences to protect their property.

The basic plan is that SFC will create the conditions for a dramatic increase in private property incursions and that property owners need to fend for themselves. When presented to the neighbors, this was not interpreted as respecting private property.

Obeying rules, especially dogs on leash - This has been a pervasive issue, lumped under the broader term of Quality-of-Life. Quality-of-life issues cover all those infractions of city ordinances which fall short of a major crime. These include off-leash aggressive dogs (and aggressive owners), alcohol use, drug use, bonfires, after curfew park usage, noise, littering, off-path activities (cross country bicycling, paint-balling, etc.) and other such activities.  There have been pet injuries and deaths as well as injuries to people from off-leash aggressive dogs.

The experience of increasing park access at Johnson Taylor Nature Preserve by the construction of a bridge in 2005 was that all of these issues increased dramatically and the expectation is that increasing trails and access would do likewise. Atlanta Police Department, Atlanta City Parks, DeKalb County Commissioners and other representatives of local government all acknowledge that Quality-of-Life issues are common in many neighborhood parks, that increased park usage leads to an increased volume of Quality-of-Life issues and all have indicated that there are no good means of addressing the problems other than by increasing police patrols. Everyone acknowledges that rule enforcement via the police force is the only means of addressing Quality-of-Life issues and that there is little prospect of police resources being made available to do so. Both SFC and Park Pride have confirmed that they do not expect there to be the police resources to provide policing of rules. The current SFC proposal has no elements that address Quality-of-Life issues and SFC and Park Pride have both indicated that their hope is that neighbors will undertake to pay off-duty officers to patrol the parks.

The basic plan is that SFC will create the conditions for a dramatic increase in Quality-of-Life issues and that neighbors need to fend for themselves. When presented to the neighbors, this was not interpreted as a credible plan.

“The route supported by most participants is already on the Park Pride website”

SFC has presented only a conceptual plan (run a trail along the creek from Cheshire Bridge Road to Emory University) but has not presented a fixed plan of the particular route, specific locations for new entrances, bridges, etc. The conceptual plan has been rejected by the neighborhood. Feedback during the four public meetings has been to some degree incorporated into the general plan but it still lacks specificity. Some of the elements that SFC has removed at the insistence of the neighborhood, such as a trail across the northern part of Johnson Taylor Nature Preserve, they have indicated they will try and put back in at a later date. Park Pride has not yet released its final report or even presented the draft version to the Steering Committee. The only route that exists on the Park Pride website is the modified conceptual plan from South Fork Conservancy. It has not been approved by the Steering Committee and it was rejected by the participants in the public meetings.

There is no final plan with any sort of specificity or detail and there is no route that is supported by most participants. As mentioned, 90% of the feedback in the final public session was negative.

 

SFC seeks to make significant changes to our neighborhood in ways that will affect the daily lives of some 2,400 people. This requires a lot of confidence in the competence and integrity of SFC. A press release such as this, riddled with inaccuracy, is not a good means for engendering the trust that is required for a project such as they are proposing.

PMG Goals

The goals of PMG are two-fold 1) Do No Harm and 2) Ensure that any decisions made regarding parks and greenspaces in Morningside Lenox Park are driven by the community, are fact-based, and are likely to be successful. This is a community of 800 homes and dozens of businesses, some 2,400 people, and property values of approximately $280 million. It is a diverse community of families, retirees and the elderly, and many young children. The parks and greenspaces are virtually entirely encompassed by these 800 homes and so any actions affecting the parks and greenspaces has intricate and pervasive consequences to those 2,400 people. So what do these two goals mean?

• Do No Harm – Any proposal of change has to credibly address possible negative outcomes, unintended consequences, and results that are not easily reversed.

• Driven by the Community – Any proposals should either originate within the community or should be supported by the majority of the affected community members.

• Fact-based – Any proposals should be grounded in empirical reality with well-established data or research supporting critical assumptions.

• Success – Any proposal should be compliant with tactical neighborhood needs as well as any overarching City or County strategic objectives and should demonstrate the basic elements of disciplined project management commensurate with the scope of work.

PMG supports any proposals that meet these four easy criteria and opposes any proposal that does not meet these criteria.

What this boils down to is a pretty simple checklist. From the Park Pride Visioning process, we have a quantifiable measure of what outcomes are most important to neighbors. From the City of Atlanta we have the eleven key requirements they articulated in the 2009 Project Greenspace master plan (we don’t have a comparable document yet for the County of DeKalb). The basic elements of disciplined project management are available from any engineering or business book.

Project Management Norms

These are norms used for any major change project whether engineering, medical, public policy, commercial, etc. They are norms that, when adhered to, empirically reduce the percentage of occasions of failed projects, projects with bad outcomes and projects with unintended consequences. Any project not adhering to this bare minimum is likely to fail, miss its targets in a material way or have significant unintended consequences. Project management is usually couched in terms of problem solving but can easily be recast to address opportunities rather than problems.

• What problem are you solving? (alternative ex. What benefit are you seeking to create?)
• How will you know when it is solved (specific measurement)?
• What are the specific details of the plan (location of path, bridges, entrances, parking, security, maintenance, gardens, dog parks, etc.)
• What are the mechanisms by which your solution will solve the problem?
• Why is this set of actions the best answer to solving this problem versus any number of other approaches?
• What are the costs to your solution (financial and non-financial) and who will bear those costs?
• What are benefits to your solution (financial and non-financial) and who will enjoy those benefits?
• What is the timeline, resources required, roles defined, responsibilities designated, and forecasted outcomes?
• Are there any empirical examples where this solution has worked under similar circumstances?
• Is there any well grounded research and empirical evidence supporting the key assumptions underpinning your proposition?

City/County Standards

We don’t have the County standards but we do have those that the City put forward in their 2009 Project Greenspace (in which Park Pride was heavily involved among many others.) While other elements might be added and people might debate the ordering and priorities, it is not an unreasonable list and most likely the County version is somewhat similar.

• Goal 1: Significantly increase the acreage of greenspace with a goal of equal distribution throughout Atlanta.
• Goal 2: Establish connections between greenspaces as part of the greenspace system, including greenway corridors, multi-use trails, and complete streets.
• Goal 3: Provide the highest quality of recreational facilities and programs within the greenspace system to meet citizens’ needs. • Goal 4: Maintain parks and recreational facilities to “best-in-class” standards and ensure that parks and other greenspaces are safe and secure.
• Goal 5: Protect environmentally sensitive lands as part of the greenspace system.
• Goal 6: Protect and restore Atlanta’s tree canopy.
• Goal 7: Promote the use of greenspaces as community gathering places, including a major outdoor events site.
• Goal 8: Integrate Atlanta’s history, cultural heritage, and the arts into the greenspace system to express community identity.
• Goal 9: Establish sustainable sources of funding for greenspace acquisition, development, and management.
• Goal 10: Promote public and private partnerships to grow and manage the greenspace system.
• Goal 11: Promote and coordinate the dedication of greenspace within new development and redevelopment projects.

Neighborhood Priorities

From the first SFC Visioning public meeting SWOT analysis, participants generated a list of 166 concerns, issues, and desires. These items were grouped and organized around seven topic areas listed below with their frequency of mention.

• Quality-of-life issues – 25%
• Conservation, ecological preservation, wildlife protection – 20%
• Purpose and confidence in plan (will it deliver?) – 20%
• Security/Property Values – 10%
• Transportation – 10%
• Privacy/Property – 5%
• Miscellaneous – 10%

Wildlife and Environmental Preservation vs. Recreational Trail Development

Debunking the Myth That Connected Trails Are the Best Method of Preservation    

South Fork Conservancy, in discussing its goals for the South Fork of the Peachtree Creek, says it wants to restore “the historic creek,” most of which, SFC asserts,  “is now hidden under bridges, pavement, culverts and invasive plants.”  How do they plan to do this?  They would not be removing the bridges, pavement, and culverts.

Preservation vs. Recreational Restoration

Sometimes SFC suggests that restoration means rebuilding a historic Indian trail along the creek.  SFC couples this goal with an assertion that developing a connected trail along with removal of invasive plants will restore and preserve the creek by increasing human contact with the creek – the “more eyes on the creek” theory.

In stark opposition to the SFC vision is an important goal for Atlanta “greenways” explained in the FINAL APPROVED GREENWAY ACQUISITION PLAN (GAP), approved by EPA and EPD on March 29, 2001

[Greenways] protect plant and animal life within the greenway, they distance relatively impervious surfaces from rivers and lakes, they provide space for best management practices (BMPs), they provide effective flood control, and they control erosion. Greenways provide a sanctuary within which living tissue live and multiply in space and time. Some of the species living within greenways are endangered or threatened. Greenways protect riparian corridors from human activities such as development, recreation, and resource extraction. This in return protects species that may be in danger of becoming extinct. Since greenways are natural buffers, the living and non-living tissue function together as an ecosystem which is healthy for humans and the environment. [riparian: pertaining to the bank of a watercourse]

Treating appropriate segments of the South Fork creek as a protective greenway that is out of bounds to development of a recreational trail will protect the creek’s riparian corridor, and protect wildlife species that presently live in those segments.  This is preservation  -  a major goal of Protect Morningside Greenspaces.

Urban wildlife habitat is a scarce resource that should be carefully protected.  No type of development that could impact it should proceed without benefits that heavily outweigh preservation.  SFC can accomplish its goals without a connected recreational trail and without disturbing segments of the creek corridor that protect wildlife.

SFC would allow on leash dog walking along the proposed trail (off leash dog activity would be a violation of municipal ordinances).  Practically, it would be impossible to prevent dog walking and nearly impossible to prevent users from illegally letting dogs off leash along such a trail.  Dogs significantly increase the negative impact of trails on wildlife.

The City of Atlanta should take advantage of its ownership of segments of the South Fork corridor that provide protective wildlife habitat by preventing all development including trails.  Do trails really matter?  Can a dirt hiking trail harm wildlife populations?  Let’s look at some scientific studies.

Hiking Trails Drive Away Wildlife

South Fork, between Morningside Nature Preserve and Johnson Taylor Park is a narrow riparian zone that provides habitat for a range of wildlife.  Neighbors report seeing deer, opossum, coyotes, barred owls, ducks, pileated woodpeckers, downy and redheaded woodpeckers, red tailed hawks, geese, chipmunks, snapping turtles, box turtles, blue birds, goldfinch, great blue heron, beaver, foxes, raccoons, river otters, and fish.

Scientific researchers have conducted studies of the impact of trails and the presence of dogs in green spaces including narrow riparian zones.  A review of several such studies along with abstracts and citations is found in the recent paper “The Impact of Recreational Trail Development for Human and Domestic Dog Use on Urban Wildlife Habitat.”  The studies led to several conclusions including the following:

• Even quiet recreational development such as a trail generally results in decreased abundance of wildlife.


• South Fork in the Morningside segment is a narrow riparian zone in which the stream and wetland ecosystem are vulnerable because of the small scale.  Fragmentation of habitats is likely.


• There is growing evidence that quiet, nonconsumptive recreation may not be compatible with biodiversity protection.


• The paper concludes with the following recommendations:


• Before approving a trail, require wildlife impact studies suitable for EPA/EPD review.


• Give weight to neighbor knowledge of wildlife populations and the negative impacts they have witnessed when access has been increased.

Consider that some segments may be inappropriate for trail development leading to a need to abandon the concept of a connected system of trails.
Set aside sensitive South Fork segments as “no trail wildlife preservation zones,” including the segment between Zonolite and Morningside Nature Preserve (this segment has beach zones flanked by narrow areas containing animal nests and burrows that are sensitive to dog activity).  By the same token, access to Johnson Taylor Preserve should not be increased.

An additional study by the University of New South Wales found that scents left by dogs (even on leash) tend to drive away wildlife.

Connected Trail is Not the Path to Preservation

SFC has not shown that building trails aids in preservation of wildlife habitats in environments like the South Fork segment from Morningside Nature Preserve to Johnson Taylor Park.  Nor should benefits to human recreation automatically be assumed to trump potential negative impacts on quality of life and wildlife habitats.

Should the trail be developed in this segment, we fear that dogs would dig up small animal burrows and destroy nests, the red-tailed hawks and owls would not have enough prey, the ducks would be frightened away from their mating and nesting grounds, and we would find a general lessening of animal and bird populations along the creek corridor.  Significant evidence predicts these setbacks to preservation.

Let’s not let it happen.

How Not To Assess Neighbor Reaction To A Project

Park Pride and South Fork Conservancy Sell A Vision

When Park Pride and South Fork Conservancy announced the meetings comprising their “visioning” process, many neighbors attended with the understanding that Park Pride intended to deal objectively with neighborhood input on the SFC connected trail proposal.  Several hundred hours of neighbor time was invested in this process based on these assurances.  We should have realized that the made up verb “visioning” meant sharing and selling the vision, not vetting it.

As a result of disappointment with the visioning process, we have established Protecting Morningside Greenspaces and this website to provide a forum for points of view that do not buy into the SFC vision for a connected trail.  We do not vilify SFC or Park Pride for sticking to their beliefs, but we do object to their holding themselves out as speaking for the community.  In our view, they have not been unbiased, objective or fact-based in their proposition.  Here are some of our criticisms of the visioning process.

Divide and confuse.  Starting with the first meeting, Park Pride split those attending into several groups to collect views.  They said the meeting would conclude with the groups coming together to share those views with everyone.  The final sharing phase was cancelled, possibly because there was unanticipated strong opposition to the connected trail proposal.  Most of the moderators of the groups seemed to be strongly in favor of the trail plan, but their inconsistent understanding of the proposal was sometimes confusing.  For example, one moderator said a benefit of the lengthy connected trails would be that kids could bike between neighborhood areas, while another moderator assured her group that the trails would not be for biking.  Not surprisingly, participants found that writing on a map marking did not provide a reasonable vehicle for making a logical position statement.

Force opponents to choose between two unacceptable alternatives.  In employing this annoying tactic, moderators or an SFC field agent would confront a person expressing opposition with a question such as: “Which would you rather have, parking along your street or a new parking lot across from the entrance to your cul-de-sac?”  This approach insulted our intelligence.

Selective response to non-central issues. SFC and Park Pride have modified their proposal in aspects that avoid dealing with major objections, to make a show of responding to neighbor input.  Sometimes these modifications actually increase the intrusion of the recreational trail, such as by building parking lots or promising to shore up creek banks where the trail would promote erosion.

Public criticism of opponents as a group.  At the public meetings, SFC personnel characterized opponents as not representative of the community, as “intimidating” others into opposition, and as taking an anti-community “not in my back yard” position.”  These comments are not true of the opposition as a whole, as is reflected in this Protect Mornside Greenspaces web site.

Ignoring and Selective Editing of Opposing Views.  Park Pride undertook to summarize the results of the public meetings on its website, and in doing so left out most detailed opposition viewpoints.  Comments hand-written on maps were often unintelligible on the published map images. Emails sent to Park Pride by opponents containing reasoned opposition were not published.  A request to post a research paper on the impact of trails on wildlife was denied by Park Pride.  Not until after the final meeting did Park Pride list verbatim the comments that people wrote on posters that evening.  We note that the contents of the site favorable to the plan were much better organized.

Burying web site comments.  Park Pride did not provide a readily visible place at their web site for comments on the SFC proposal.  Park Pride provided only one area for the public to post comments.  One had to find the section devoted to individual maps that were marked up at the public meetings, and make a comment on a particular map.  This effectively buried important comments and made them inaccessible to all except those willing to open virtually every page on the web site.  We wonder if SFC is counting on their target funding sources not digging down to the individual map level to discover the level of opposition to their plans?

Celebrating Urban Footpaths

Sidewalks link Morningside Nature Preserves and Parks

By Jeff Young

Sometimes, Melinda and I have an urge to hike in the woods, to enjoy a view of nature and a sense of animal and plant habitat.  More often, we like to walk through neighborhoods, gardens, or commercial areas vibrant with community and architecture reflecting the creativity and craftsmanship of humankind.  Fortunately, Morningside/ Lenox Park has plenty of both kinds of opportunities and is within a short distance of many others in surrounding parts of the Metro area.

For those who seek a longer walk, Morningside offers the best of both experiences.  Sidewalks along pleasant streets connect a number of parks and nature preserves in our neighborhood.  Map 1 below illustrates a grand circle starting and ending at the parking lot adjacent the Georgia Power substation on Lenox Road.  This route is approximately 5.5 to 6 miles long, and traverses trails and sidewalks* along:

• Morningside Nature Preserve (MNP)


• Wellbourne Drive  (*0.4 mi. no sidewalk, shown in yellow)


• Wildwood Road


• Lenox-Wildwood Park


• Berkshire Park


• Sunken Garden Park


• E. Sussex Road


• Berkshire Road


• Beech Valley Road


• Johnson/Taylor Nature Preserve and Park (JTP)


• Pasadena Avenue


• Meadowvale Avenue


• Noble Park/Homestead Park/Hickory Grove Park


• Homestead Avenue


• Johnson Road


• Lenox Road

What a great trek for a pleasant Fall morning!

New revenues required to make this walk possible: $0

One of the many reasons to oppose the South Fork Conservancy trail plan is its high cost. (See post entitled “Trails Are Not Free.”)

Construction of new connections required for this walk: None.

Another reason to oppose the SFC plan is its insistence on a connected trail, when the connections already exist!

Development of greenspace and new disruption of wildlife habitat to enable this walk: None.

In contrast, the SFC plan would of necessity cause some damage to urban forest and wildlife habitat.

Give Wildlife A Chance

By Jeff Young

My son recently visited the Amazon jungle in Ecuador, booking a spot on a series of guided hikes into the jungle.  On arrival, he and his friend found that they were the only ones signed up.  The guide said they might see wildlife, like monkeys and sloths, but there was no guarantee.  What great luck, to be able to go into the jungle with only three people, rather than a large, noisy group.

Over a couple of days of hiking, they saw not a single monkey.  Why not?  I suspect the constant parade of people along the trails caused the animals to move deeper into the jungle.  This would be consistent with the studies reported in another post on this site, in which researchers found that wildlife densities decreased near trails.

So what happens along the South Fork of the Peachtree Creek in the narrow corridor of wildlife habitat when a trail is built and traversed by people and their dogs?  There is nowhere for the animals to go except along the creek.  The fox in the photo above now lives near Robin Lane.  People near the Johnson-Taylor park say they used to have foxes, but no more since usage rates increased following the construction of an access bridge.  That’s when the creek beaches were improperly adopted as a “destination” off leash dog run.  The foxes had to move on.

If the SFC plan results in a 32 mile continuous trail along the entire creek, the animals will go ___?____.

Trails Are Not Free !

By Jeff Young

1. How much will the South Fork Conservancy Trail Plan Cost?


2. Where will the money come from?

 

These are two of many key questions SFC has not answered prior to seeking ommunity support for its proposal.  Don’t be surprised if the answers are:

1. a lot; and


2. taxes, neighbors passing the hat for upkeep, and foundation grants.

Let’s make some educated guesses about just one of the major expenses required.

Bridges

Many bridges would be required to complete the trail from Cheshire Bridge to Decatur and Tucker.  Three bridges would be needed just in the area where the creek runs behind Homestead and Lenox Circle and then crosses under Lenox Road to Robin Lane.  Map 1 below is a portion of a map from the SFC website that I have marked in red to show the approximate positions of bridges at crossings proposed by SFC (existing bridges are in yellow):

[caption id="attachment_358" align="alignnone" width="300"] MAP 1 - Trail Proposal Showing Needed Bridges[/caption]

Where the two bridges would cross the creek itself near Homestead and Robin Lane, the creek has cut deep canyons.  The third bridge would be required to span the tributary stream that runs along Lenox Road.  That stream also floods, but has a smaller flow volume.  The canyon walls are reflected in the close contour lines on Map 2 below. When it rains hard in DeKalb County, the water rushes through these canyons, carrying debris and logs and rising to flood Lenox Road.  These flash floods are dangerous! When you are walking by, take a look yourself from the Lenox Road bridge downstream, and think about how you would get out if a wall of water suddenly appeared heading toward you.

Map 2 below shows the proposed location of the Robin Lane bridge.  The creek is marked in blue, and sewers on both sides of the creek are marked in pink.  The trail would run west to east behind the Morningside Place condominiums, paralleling the newer sewer line that was installed several years ago.

[caption id="attachment_359" align="alignnone" width="229"] Area of Needed Bridge Near Robin Lane[/caption]

We understand from residents that the condominium association sold a trail easement to the city in addition to the sewer easement (which by itself does not allow access for a hiking trail).  The trail runs into private property (white space) prior to reaching Lenox Road, and therefore SFC proposes to build a bridge to extend the trail over the creek onto land the city owns on the south bank.  This property consists of steep terrain up to a narrow, flat strip along Robin Lane.  It extends to Lenox Road (not shown), and the city owns another parcel on the south side of the creek on the east side of Lenox Road (not shown).  Another, older sewer runs along the creek on the south side.  This map includes contour lines – the closer the lines, the steeper the hill.

Some of the challenges of bridge building here would be:

• Designing a bridge massive and strong enough so that its foundation would withstand the flood waters, and tall enough so that its deck would not flood.


• Positioning the footers to avoid interfering with the major sewers that run along both sides of the creek.


• Finding room for all this structure within the canyon walls.


• Avoiding massive damage to the creek banks during construction.


• Figuring out how the massive footers could be placed so as not to channel flows in a way that would increase bank erosion during flooding.


• Constructing huge bridges without significant damage to wildlife habitat in the narrow wetland corridor.

What do we mean by a massive bridge?  Let’s look at the suspension bridge that was built in the Morningside Nature Preserve(MNP).  First, note that this bridge was built where the creek has a relatively flat flood plain rather than steep canyon walls, so the same volume of water would not have the same velocity hitting the bridge.  By the way, we have reports of water rising up to the bottom of the stairs of this bridge.

[caption id="attachment_361" align="alignnone" width="300"] Bridge in Morningside Nature Preserve[/caption]

The MNP bridge is 140 feet long (I measured it).  The bridge deck along is 100 feet, the width of my lot.  The pylons are pretty obviously planted deeply in the stream bed, and the cables are anchored in large, mostly buried concrete blocks positioned up on the banks.  The bridge is a beautiful piece of engineering and design.

The cost?  According to a city official, over $200,000 for one bridge.

Who paid for it?  The official said the cost was split between City of Atlanta funds and the PATH Foundation.

Common sense suggests that the new bridges over the main creek would have more rigorous structural requirements and would be more expensive.  That means that “connecting” trails from this area to other segments of the project would likely require $400,000 to $500,000 up front for these bridges.  But that is the tip of the iceberg.  I count 44 crossings along the length of the SFC trail plan.  Perhaps a handful of these already have bridges.  That total does not include the existing bridges I know of in the MNP, Johnson Taylor, and along Medlock Trail.

Do You Trust Politicians Who Don’t Tell You What a Project Costs?  Do You Trust That a Project Will Come In On Budget When They Do Tell You?  Let’s Require the Same Stewardship of Our Money Here.

The SFC Proposal is Expensive!  

Let’s look at the impact if SFC snares a major foundation grant for this project.  It is always tempting to think that whenever a foundation kicks in, the city should snap up a bargain.  But these are lean times, especially for local governments.  The city’s share is money that would not be available for other purposes.  By the same token, the foundation money would not be available for other purposes, and some grants might help the city accomplish really high priority goals, for example in the schools.  Morningside has more parks than most areas of the city, and even the SFC survey showed that residents are satisfied with their parks.  Building more parks in Morningside should not be a priority for spending.

Turning from construction to examples of longer term expenses, we asked SFC at the public meetings who would maintain the trails and keep them safe.  SFC supporters suggested that nearby neighbors contribute to hire security officers and pay to maintain the trails.  We were not impressed at the idea of people from outside our area coming in and telling us what we need, and by the way we should take on a financial burden lasting long after they are gone.

Some of the SFC folks were involved in the restoration of the Olmstead Parks along Ponce de Leon Ave.  We hear that neighbors have had to contribute regularly to a fund for maintaining those parks.

We cannot count on the city having sufficient funds to patrol and maintain SFC trails.

In summary, SFC is looking to build out a huge project with somebody else’s money, and it will take a ton of cash.  Is this where our taxes and donations should go?