Fw: Buzzards Remains

[Bruce&Linda Dwyer]

 City council deferred its decision until Tuesday after much discussion, many motions, and a lot of confusion. We did not far well at all.   It appears that bikes are out for sure unless somebody pulls a rabbit from the hat.  Further, as envisioned I do not believe the pedestrian path on the table will work. The below is my personal point of view and I did not represent it as a bike committee position.  Weigh in with your own views to Council.
Bruce
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Bruce&Linda Dwyer 
To: Paul Smedberg ; Ludwig Gaines ; Andrew MacDonald ; Rob Krupicka 
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 2:37 PM
Subject: Buzzards Remains


Thanks for your efforts today. To say the least, I am very disappointed in the outcome of the buzzards Gap issue.  My sympathies to you because I feel neither you nor the public was well served by staff work.  I think the only possibility on the table now is the "circuitous" pedestrian trail.  It is not good for the following:
-Pedestrians will always tale the most direct route.  Just look at paths that are beaten despite the path and sidewalk designs of "professional" engineers"
-Paths with lots of sharp turns also create a more dangerous situation for bad elements to lurk beyond the bend.
-With tree buffers, the path become a more likely haven for the bad elements because there is not good line of sight.  Police will not go along with such a design.
-Trails and paths need to be in the open and with relative straight lines.
-Excluding bikes is a mistake.  All trails that connect neighborhood should be multi-use.  Pedestrian "only" paths are good for strolling, like along the waterfront, or wandering the woods in the Winkler Preserve
I personally would not support such a trail.  I also think that it will take a tremendous amount of time and energy that will result in no trail because the only option has the major flaws mentioned above.  The only reason for going ahead is a matter of principle, and I don't think that is good enough a reason.
If there were pedestrian. bicycle, trails design expertise on staff, I think that you would have had an opportunity to avoid the dilemma you now face.  The Bike Committee has persisted in recommending professional staff for years.  It is in the 1998 bike plan. I have recommended courses and conferences for existing staff, but they don't go. At best the city staff sometimes comes to the bike committee for advice, but frequently our suggestions do not see the light of day or are misinterpreted, such as what happened with or recommendations on the Eisenhower East Plan.
 I will repeat my mantra, How can the 10th most densely populated city in the country facing congestion, air quality and obesity problems not have an proactive non-motorized transportation policy, program, and professional staff.  
A little history on path rejections:
-W&OD in Del Ray rejected by city manger in 1998 bike plan because of promises made by city officials that it would not be developed
-Rejection by Tarleton Park neighbors for path improvements because they object to city vehicle persistently using the paths and they fear improvements would promote city vehicle use.  I saw 3 city truck on paths in this area on Friday morning.  Citizen would like a non-motorized path.
-Path through Raleigh Park rejected by a few Homes Run neighbors.  (Most were supportive but not strongly enough to go against a few objecting neighbors.
-Path across Holmes Run strongly supported by Lincolnia Hills neighborhood, but rejected by nay-sayers in Dowdon Terrace.
-Path under beltway at Telegraph as path as part of Wilson Bridge project dealt a blow when city approved a parking garage and storm water retention pond in its path (without a review of the approved bike plan) giving the Wilson Bridge Project staff a reason to propose killing it.  I have proposed alternatives, but do not know how they are progressing with the city and WWB staff.
-The Open Space Plan has at least 6 other proposed neighborhood connecting paths that I feel will fall to the same NIMBY fate.
So from my perspective, things look bleak.  Back to Buzzards Gap.  Any decision must incorporate the principles of path design (plus some others that I have overlooked but would be apparent to professional designers) I mentioned above.  Is it possible to get the property owner to agree to the easement that was disapproved last Spring so allow such a path design?  Lacking that which might allow for a good path design, I do not think you have a viable path.
These are my personal opinions and do nor reflect the views of the bike committee or the Park and Recreation Commission, where my term expires Feb 28
Contact me if you have any questions. 
Bruce Dwyer
ouibike at att.net
703-549-3263