Connected Trails Boondoggle: Expensive, Dangerous, Harmful, Ineffective, Opposed

South Fork Conservancy, an outside special interest group, is pursuing your tax dollars to spoil miles of undeveloped stream corridor along the South Fork of Peachtree Creek with connected trails.  Here’s how the SFC plan fails to meet even minimal common sense requirements:

·         Expensive – from the minimum amount of information SFC has been willing to share, it appears that the capital expense for this initial phase of the project (MNP to Emory University) is on the order of $2-4 million and the estimated annual operating costs (security and maintenance) are $1.8 million

·         Dangerous – A robust body of data highlights the increase in both crime and safety issues arising from such connected trails. Neighborhoods adjacent to parks with high access and high non-resident usage have crime rates 2.0-2.5 times higher than they otherwise would be.  From BeltLine statistics, we can anticipate that there will be 19 robberies per year on the connected trail in northern Morningside.^*

·         Harmful – Studies show that recreational connecting trails materially harm wildlife conservation and ecological preservation.  The data leads us to expect extraordinary harm given the constricted space available for SFC’s proposed trails and the stream corridor’s already threatened ecological condition.  Wildlife populations can be expected to decline by 50-75% and ecological degradation increase by at least 50% (social trails).

.        Ineffective – Recreational connected trails have a very high failure rate as measured against stated objectives.  35% of connected trail projects cause a decrease in trail usage.  100% experience user displacement and reduced user diversity (local users of all ages are displaced by 25-55 year old dog-walkers or bikers).  100% fail to have any measurable impact on community health.

·         Opposed – Neighborhood opposition to the SFC recreational connected trail plan has been well documented. There is hardly any objectively documented local support from either residents or commercial businesses for SFC’s plan.  Documented opposition to the recreational connected trail plan ranges from 68-90%.

PMG does not oppose all trails.  However, PMG believes that trail proposals should be adopted only after a thorough and transparent process demonstrates community support, a positive impact on preservation, and financial reasonableness.  No such process has been required for the trail proposal of SFC, which has yet to issue detailed plans or a detailed budget. This PMG web site contains research explaining how trail development impacts wildlife and the incidence of crime along trails, as well as the methodology and results of an auditable survey of impacted Morningside neighbors.

For more information on the points of failure summarized above, see the following posts on this PMG web site:


Connected Trails and Safety – An Answer

Trust and accurate communication

PMG Responds to the Park Pride Visioning Report

Wildlife and Environmental Preservation vs. Recreational Trail Development

Trails Are Not Free!

Frequently Asked Questions About the SFC Plan

* - Increasing non-residential usage of parks as a predictor of crime is well documented:  See US Department of Justice Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks.  Per DOJ research park and community crime is associated with increased access, increased non-residential use, increased community permeability and absence of effective policing.