Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well... I'm going to do what I usually do and try to take a moderate/progressive point of view and everyone hate the opinion.
Basically, I'm tired of two things:
1) this aggressive, unrealistic utopian vision of the world. In many ways I have this love/hate relationship, because I want us to put money into some of the same things they do. It is just they take their argument to such large extents... other people lose sight of how feasible some things are and how cheap some things really are. Scale your arguments back down to reality and things start to seem more feasible to more people and are actually cheaper to implement.
2) people who are unable to let our society grow in a different way at all, because that isn't the way we are today.
We will have to change one way or another out of necessity or our city can't hold extra people, we will lose our luster, won't attract top people/companies and the money they attract.
We outgrew our transportation options to Downtown in the late 80s/early 90s, despite freeing the freeways. We adjusted by creating a multi-core city. This opened up many doors for us and allowed us to grow bigger, but we will still have to do other things for the future.... although I guess we could invite Gainesville, Athens, and Chattanooga to be our regions next downtown cores. Either way, one thing I don't like about us today vs. the early 90s... we are no longer a city where our whole region metro can feasibly and sustainably have everyone commute to one place. It is all about where you live to see where you can commute to. In the early 90s traffic was bad in places, but the whole city was still mostly built around the notion most people were connected to Atlanta's core. People also rallied around the city as a region more than they do now. I miss that.
My pitch is this....
Perimeter was mostly drive up to retail centers and office communities. They have MARTA stations and have invested a good bit in large, nice sidewalks. The area looks nice. As-is I don't see many bikers for day-to-day purposes. However, many recent developments are prepped for both a car-oriented and a walking oriented lifestyle.
However, there are tons of condos and apartments in the area. Most new developments are being built mixed-use and are closer to the curb and the roads are jam-packed at rush hour. I mean really there is no shortage of people complaining about it.
I think we should target investments for off-road multi-use paths in and between key nodes within dense districts. In the grand scheme it is really short, far cheaper than roads, and allow people to live in denser areas and have access to recreational amenities. It increases the value of the area. I see new mix-use development for the future being able to use the assets. It is a complete chicken-egg scenario. No one built apartments with bikers in mind, because the infrastructure simply didn't exist.
Within an area like Perimeter I see a huge potential for bike-commuting. The trick is it won't be everyone. It will be people who take up the urban lifestyle of living within the Perimeter Center area itself. They will most likely do it, because it is quicker and easier than the roads.
What I don't see them doing is giving up their cars either. All of these new condo complexes have parking garages. Just people because someone can bike to their office 1.5 mi away, doesn't mean they are 100% bike dependent. It just means we increased the reach of them being able to access their office without a car within an area where we are spending hundred of millions so a few thousand more cars per hour can access the area. Why are people debating about being 100% all-in bike or 100% all-out. In our city you can live without a car and live a decent life, but I also know there are challenges to overcome this and you give up on some of the things our city has to offer. It doesn't mean we can't have bike commuters and bikable neighborhoods in the mix. It isn't a 100% night and day choice.
I don't see it as a grand fix. I don't see it as everyone doing this. I don't see it as solving traffic. However, I do see it as a way more workers can reach these offices and the area can grow more. The more people who live near their work, the less traffic will be. Sure it might just be single 20-somethings and 30-somethings, but they still work and they represent one extra worker for a high paying office without the cost of 1 extra car on the road at rush hour in a high demand traffic plagued area.
It is pretty eye opening to see communities in Northern Europe, particularly around Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Scandinavia integrate off road bike lanes into their cities and they are heavily used. They work, but it takes both private and public development that works with that lifestyle to make it possible. Now that developers are doing more infill development and building dense nodes up, the feasibility of constructing this and having it work over time has greatly increased. Yes, we aren't European cities and no we won't be like them, but I fail to see why parts of that model of life can't exist for a few dense business districts that are high demand for dense residential development often for people that work in that area.
Anyways one general rule. For every 4000-5000 people we can get to live in the Perimeter Center area that also work in the area through more condos/apartments and mixed-use developments will mean 1 less freeway lane (for many miles), 1 less exit/entrance ramp lane, and 1 less surface st lane from the freeway is needed to handle the added traffic for those employees.
A freeway at its peak capacity is doing good to deliver 1800 cars/lane/hour, which is often lessened by congestion. That capacity has to exist on exits and surface streets as well.
Anything that lets more people live and work in the area might not solve existing traffic, but it allows for us to have that much more business growth without the costs of expanding peak our freeway/road capacity.
It also means our best approaches will start to not be "one-size-fits-all."
Well... I'm going to do what I usually do and try to take a moderate/progressive point of view and everyone hate the opinion.
Basically, I'm tired of two things:
1) this aggressive, unrealistic utopian vision of the world. In many ways I have this love/hate relationship, because I want us to put money into some of the same things they do. It is just they take their argument to such large extents... other people lose sight of how feasible some things are and how cheap some things really are. Scale your arguments back down to reality and things start to seem more feasible to more people and are actually cheaper to implement.
2) people who are unable to let our society grow in a different way at all, because that isn't the way we are today.
We will have to change one way or another out of necessity or our city can't hold extra people, we will lose our luster, won't attract top people/companies and the money they attract.
We outgrew our transportation options to Downtown in the late 80s/early 90s, despite freeing the freeways. We adjusted by creating a multi-core city. This opened up many doors for us and allowed us to grow bigger, but we will still have to do other things for the future.... although I guess we could invite Gainesville, Athens, and Chattanooga to be our regions next downtown cores. Either way, one thing I don't like about us today vs. the early 90s... we are no longer a city where our whole region metro can feasibly and sustainably have everyone commute to one place. It is all about where you live to see where you can commute to. In the early 90s traffic was bad in places, but the whole city was still mostly built around the notion most people were connected to Atlanta's core. People also rallied around the city as a region more than they do now. I miss that.
My pitch is this....
Perimeter was mostly drive up to retail centers and office communities. They have MARTA stations and have invested a good bit in large, nice sidewalks. The area looks nice. As-is I don't see many bikers for day-to-day purposes. However, many recent developments are prepped for both a car-oriented and a walking oriented lifestyle.
However, there are tons of condos and apartments in the area. Most new developments are being built mixed-use and are closer to the curb and the roads are jam-packed at rush hour. I mean really there is no shortage of people complaining about it.
I think we should target investments for off-road multi-use paths in and between key nodes within dense districts. In the grand scheme it is really short, far cheaper than roads, and allow people to live in denser areas and have access to recreational amenities. It increases the value of the area. I see new mix-use development for the future being able to use the assets. It is a complete chicken-egg scenario. No one built apartments with bikers in mind, because the infrastructure simply didn't exist.
Within an area like Perimeter I see a huge potential for bike-commuting. The trick is it won't be everyone. It will be people who take up the urban lifestyle of living within the Perimeter Center area itself. They will most likely do it, because it is quicker and easier than the roads.
What I don't see them doing is giving up their cars either. All of these new condo complexes have parking garages. Just people because someone can bike to their office 1.5 mi away, doesn't mean they are 100% bike dependent. It just means we increased the reach of them being able to access their office without a car within an area where we are spending hundred of millions so a few thousand more cars per hour can access the area. Why are people debating about being 100% all-in bike or 100% all-out. In our city you can live without a car and live a decent life, but I also know there are challenges to overcome this and you give up on some of the things our city has to offer. It doesn't mean we can't have bike commuters and bikable neighborhoods in the mix. It isn't a 100% night and day choice.
I don't see it as a grand fix. I don't see it as everyone doing this. I don't see it as solving traffic. However, I do see it as a way more workers can reach these offices and the area can grow more. The more people who live near their work, the less traffic will be. Sure it might just be single 20-somethings and 30-somethings, but they still work and they represent one extra worker for a high paying office without the cost of 1 extra car on the road at rush hour in a high demand traffic plagued area.
It is pretty eye opening to see communities in Northern Europe, particularly around Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Scandinavia integrate off road bike lanes into their cities and they are heavily used. They work, but it takes both private and public development that works with that lifestyle to make it possible. Now that developers are doing more infill development and building dense nodes up, the feasibility of constructing this and having it work over time has greatly increased. Yes, we aren't European cities and no we won't be like them, but I fail to see why parts of that model of life can't exist for a few dense business districts that are high demand for dense residential development often for people that work in that area.
Anyways one general rule. For every 4000-5000 people we can get to live in the Perimeter Center area that also work in the area through more condos/apartments and mixed-use developments will mean 1 less freeway lane (for many miles), 1 less exit/entrance ramp lane, and 1 less surface st lane from the freeway is needed to handle the added traffic for those employees.
A freeway at its peak capacity is doing good to deliver 1800 cars/lane/hour, which is often lessened by congestion. That capacity has to exist on exits and surface streets as well.
Anything that lets more people live and work in the area might not solve existing traffic, but it allows for us to have that much more business growth without the costs of expanding peak our freeway/road capacity.
It also means our best approaches will start to not be "one-size-fits-all."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
