Peachtree City’s Transportation Advisory Group: Lessons from Two Years of Service

As part of my commitment to our community and in a spirit of volunteerism, I joined the Peachtree City Transportation Advisory Group (TAG) a little more than two years ago after applying and passing an interview.

My term ended in September, and I have some reflections and observations as the only original member remaining after two years.

Unlike the Planning Commission and other long-term civic boards and advisory groups, we had no model of how to conduct official business since TAG had not existed in any form prior to two years ago, but the ordinance that established TAG gave us some direction as did City staff and Council members.

The ordinance requires we gather resident input; propose updates to the master path plan and overall City transportation system; review the annual City street and path paving plan; recommend safety, promotional, and educational efforts; and review progress on ADA implementation. All this is advisory; nothing is binding on Council or staff.

Our first order of business was to elect a chair, and to my surprise, I was nominated yet didn’t decline because of a personal rule- never decline leadership. I am not a perfect leader, but the world needs people to volunteer when asked.

I suspect that nearly every civic organization, service group, religious organization, and club in Peachtree City and beyond struggles with finding people who will volunteer to be leaders. Everyone wants the benefits of membership, but few want to volunteer to lead; hence, my rule.

Given the diverse backgrounds and skills that TAG members brought with them, being chair was a good experience. TAG members are knowledgeable and insightful. When we didn’t know something, City staff helped us.

My leadership style is to seek consensus agreements- everyone is heard and everyone participates; nobody is sidelined.

Among specific accomplishments, we proposed major ordinance updates that Council accepted. It had been at least 10 years since the last update.

But looking back, what stands out most is not any single issue we addressed or change we proposed but the process of building a new civic volunteer organization from the ground up- together.

Closing out the first year of TAG, I realized that while we had accomplished quite a bit, we were often reacting to issues as they appeared rather than working from a common set of priorities. Again, the guidance provided by the ordinance was helpful, but much of that could be done in a few meetings.

Relying on my knowledge from a prior role in corporate planning and some MBA classwork, we started a SWOT (Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats) Analysis of Peachtree City’s transportation systems to determine priorities.

The question we had to answer was, “of all the things we could do, what should we do, and why?” Many of us have full-time jobs- even the retirees on TAG are busy living their best lives- so we had to select the vital few tasks we could realistically accomplish.

Given residents’ passion for the paths and keeping them safe and secure, we naturally gravitated to making recommendations about the path system.

We ultimately developed a prioritized work plan to keep ourselves focused on the issues that mattered most.

As our work increasingly focused on the path system, public engagement became both one of TAG’s greatest strengths and one of its biggest challenges.

It is clear to anyone who spends much time in Peachtree City that the residents love the shared-use path system and are passionate about it. Since the paths are integral to my daily life, I share this love and passion also.

Overwhelmingly, public comments were thoughtful, insightful, and helpful. TAG solicits resident input and uses it when we look at proposing ordinance revisions or recommending staff and Council actions.

I suspect a few public commentors felt their statements were controversial to TAG’s direction: no TDK Boulevard extension to Coweta County or concerns about Fayette Connect, for example. They were not.

Unless the source is an official City page, Facebook and other social media are not the places to obtain factual information about the path system, and unfortunately, social media discussions often contain incomplete or inaccurate information.

Residents who attended meetings expecting TAG to discuss issues circulating online occasionally found that those issues had never been agenda items or discussion topics, such as the aforementioned TDK Boulevard.

TAG’s interaction with Fayette Connect, another bit of local controversy, was to listen to their presentation and have a question-and-answer session with no further actions.

The discussion around Fayette Connect highlights a broader point: transportation decisions affecting Peachtree City often originate outside city limits.

The efforts of Fayette Connect as they apply to Peachtree City are like a belt and suspenders. The City has already has a vision, a plan, and funding for our path system that work. Still, we need to pay attention to what they are doing and collaborate where it is mutually beneficial.

Additionally, the Atlanta Regional Commission, Fayette County, and the municipalities that surround Peachtree City make transportation decisions that may affect Peachtree City negatively and positively, and City Council, City staff, and TAG need to stay ahead of them so we can react appropriately.

Like many organizations that rely on public participation, TAG eventually had to adjust its procedures because of a small number of unproductive interactions.

Some residents couldn’t behave appropriately during public comment, which changed things for everyone else. At the beginning residents could comment while TAG discussed our agenda, and I found nearly all the comments moved the discussions along.

Comments that didn’t keep things moving were inconsequential.

Gradually, we had a few comments that led us to put public comments at the beginning of the agenda and take no input after that, and I was quite disappointed with that.

City Council has held a no-reponse public comment period at the beginning of meetings forever, but they are political figures, and TAG is just a group of volunteers.

To have a complete and thorough discussion, it is necessary to discuss unpopular opinions. Ignoring the elephant in the room doesn’t make it go away.

I specifically recall a comment along the lines “don’t allow any bicycle with a throttle,” which is fine by itself- it’s an opinion. But the commenter wanted to debate us, which we weren’t going to do.

E-bikes which have a throttle and travel up to 20 mph have been allowed for years and residents have purchased hundreds if not thousands of them. There was no way we would have made any recommendation to Council and staff to change that.

In TAG’s view, the challenge was rarely the equipment itself. The challenge was behavior. A rider not using common sense or demonstrating basic courtesy creates the same problems whether the vehicle is an e-bike, a golf cart, or something else. That makes enforcement and education more effective solutions than broad prohibitions.

Public comment period is not an opportunity to debate. Make a good argument, say your piece, and be done. TAG members really do listen to insightful comments.

As an aside, in two years, I’m surprised that nobody ever commented on gas golf carts.

Nearly every controversy TAG encountered ultimately came back to one reality: residents view the path system as both transportation network and a community amenity.

The path system holds a special place. We take the existence of streets and roads as a given and don’t get too excited about them. Nobody ever called them an amenity; nor did anyone ever brag they have a street in front of their home.

Telling your out-of-town friends and work colleagues that you commute to work or take your kids to school on a golf cart is bound to get some curious and inquisitive responses.

The same way we don’t like other park users that don’t pick up their trash or blare their music so the whole park can hear it, we don’t like poorly behaved path users either.

But this goes a step further- path users can also subject others to injury through inattention, not following the rules, and not using common sense.

A poorly behaved driver on State Road 74 happens all the time- that’s Monday. A poorly behaved cart driver is a danger to others, and, emotionally, an outrage. 74 isn’t ours, but the path system is.

Traditional streets and roads insulate us from potential harm due to spacing, signalization, copious signage, and presence of law enforcement; paths are up close and personal so negative experiences and conflicts are not unusual.

There is also an information gap with the path system. There are already several connections to other municipalities and Fayette County. The students who take carts to Starr’s Mills High School ride partway on County paths because Starr’s Mill is in the county.

Those that want to shut down connections to the outside don’t understand that many residents benefit from connections to the outside.

The challenging dichotomy of the path system being both a transportation network and an amenity is when some residents want things both ways, which is impossible.

Unfortunately, state law and city ordinances often conflict with this approach.

The path system was never intended to function as a gated facility. Like streets, parks, and trails elsewhere, it exists within a broader regional transportation network. Balancing local expectations with state and local law and practical realities will likely remain an ongoing challenge.

After two years on TAG, I’ve come away with a deeper appreciation for both the path system and the people who care about it.

What makes the system special is also what makes it challenging. Residents may disagree about specific issues, but those disagreements arise because people care deeply about