We want to provide clarification and to address some questions/concerns about the Graylyn proposals that have been shared with us.
First, in our e-mail, we provided misinformation about who makes the ultimate decision. It is the division director, Lewis Ledford. We apologize for the misinformation we provided earlier.
Secondly, we received a question about the impact of Alternative C on the closing of Sycamore Road and whether it would eliminate a popular route for bikers, runners and hikers. We received the following response from Charlie Peek with NC Parks:
Your question is a good one. It's the division's intention -- under any of the alternatives being considered -- to continue, and perhaps enhance, any access that hikers and bikers now enjoy within the park. Should we proceed with Alternate C, provision will be made for this. However, our planning staff and park staff do want to keep some flexibility concerning some of the details of management. Put another way, we need to keep our options open on how to achieve our objectives. ...please ask further questions if necessary.
We believe that the closing of Sycamore is actually a benefit as it will reduce the cars encountered.
And last but not least, we understand that there is concern by a limited number of neighbors that think that Alternative C would result in Graylyn becoming a main entrance. We believe NC Park's eliminating the vehicular traffic on Sycamore Road addresses this concern so as not to make this access any busier than that at Harrison. NC Parks has clearly established the main entrance with the Visitor's Center off of Hwy 70/Glenwood Avenue.
If you have additional questions, let us know--or if you have relevant information let us know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
As I understand it, Graylynn Rd is being paved and packing on the road/sholder is no longer allowed because of the heavy traffic load that existed when it was used for park access and users parked along the road. With no parking along Graylynn now the traffic load is low and paving is not needed.
The landowners cannot have it both ways...Paving and no traffic or park access from Graylynn. this is a community resource and Plan C will provide the best solution for park use, parking and it will elmininate traffic inside the park.
I agree with your logic, but apparently the people who originally put the plan together weren't so logical--Graylyn has already been paved! So at the moment, the landowners (4) do have it both ways--paved "private road" to their house. Let's hope that logical next step of alternative C is not so elusive.
Post a Comment