A view from the public side
When we run public meetings, we’re responsible for the plans, agenda, and entire event schedule. But attending a public meeting as a member of the public is like a venture into the unknown—who will be there, how it will be run, or who will be in charge are all a big mystery.
Not long ago I attended a neighborhood public meeting to speak against a new traffic (“calming”) plan that my well-intentioned neighbors are proposing.
The short explanation: some neighbors have decided that redevelopment around our intown neighborhood is sure to cause more traffic on the residential streets. They waged war against Atlantic Station, a new mix use development, and got $4.5 million in a 1999 settlement to make road improvements. They have chosen to put traffic circles called “amoebouts” at each intersection (a concept invented by the designers of the Ansley Park Traffic and Pedestrian Access Improvements Master Plan). The design makes the streets look like a giant slalom ride or a huge maze of asphalt circles. They are even proposing to put a tot lot in one of the larger circles, a notion that gives the admonishment to “go play in traffic” new meaning.
I conduct public meetings for a living. So of course I was interested in how the neighbors would conduct theirs. On arriving for the first meeting in mid-September, we still did not know the format or agenda. So we came early, and my fellow opponents handed out a one-page sheet describing what was wrong with the traffic plan, just in case we could not speak.
For me, the main issue is that the traffic counts in the neighborhood are actually less than before Atlantic Station opened, so we are trying to fix something that may not need fixing. The plan proposes a solution when the problem is not clear. Also, the solution has not been vetted or approved by a traffic engineer, and there has been no safety analysis. Plus, I don’t like what this solution does to our Olmsted-designed neighborhood.
We asked the proponent speakers how many accidents had occurred, how many tickets for speeding had been written, and–more to the point–why we need a traffic-calming plan. There was not a traffic engineer speaking that evening, and the speakers on hand could not answer with facts. I thought it might be best to present real information for the public to respond to. The proponents said they had worked very hard on the plan for a few years and so everyone should sign the petitions in favor.
I finally had the opportunity to comment and told the neighborhood we need experienced professionals who are traffic experts to do the plan. I was booed by the proponents. That’s not the first time I’ve been booed in a public meeting, but it’s a little different when it’s your neighbors doing the booing. I certainly found that if you speak out against the flow in the neighborhood, you won’t win any popularity contests.
Bottom line: the meeting was a waste of time because the presentation was short on facts and lacked expertise.
The proponents are doing a series of smaller meetings of neighbors, and I’ve been making myself persona non grata at a few of those as well.