U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-23-2016, 07:44 AM
 
2,136 posts, read 2,128,519 times
Reputation: 1473

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
They have for older residents. They have a very generous senior exemption.
It's no more generous than the senior exemptions found in most surrounding cities/counties. They'll put a more generous proposal on a ballot later this year, but it'll likely face stiff opposition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-23-2016, 07:45 AM
 
29,881 posts, read 27,333,728 times
Reputation: 18427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulch View Post
The Saporta article is more city-centric.
That article made the same mistake:

Quote:
In particular, the arteries of transportation are becoming ever more congested, and the public realm has come to be seen as hostile. New and wider roads have been the normal solution to the problem.
However, an ever expanding sea of asphalt has begun to tear at the fabric of urban life. Increases in congestion and asphalt have begun to damage much that has made the city attractive. The “city in a forest” has come to be seen as the city of traffic jams, pavement and heat.
New and wider roads are part of the solution from a REGIONAL perspective, not an intown perspective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 07:52 AM
 
10,532 posts, read 7,507,853 times
Reputation: 3315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
New and wider roads are part of the solution from a REGIONAL perspective, not an intown perspective.
They don't work from a regional perspective either. They just encourage people to move further away and have to drive more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 09:38 AM
 
29,881 posts, read 27,333,728 times
Reputation: 18427
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
They don't work from a regional perspective either. They just encourage people to move further away and have to drive more.
People are doing that anyway, even without more roads.

If you're essentially arguing that Atlanta should have Birmingham's road network, then we'll agree to disagree on that point.

But road diets and streetscaping programs are not overall regional solutions for transportation issues in any case. The article was not making an apples to apples comparison.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 10:49 AM
 
10,532 posts, read 7,507,853 times
Reputation: 3315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
People are doing that anyway, even without more roads.
What example are you looking at where people are moving to the suburbs without more and wider roads?

There have been multiple studies that show an almost one-to-one ratio between new road capacity and people relocating to use it.

Obviously "people" are moving everywhere. But there is no denying that new and wider roads tigger more people relocating to use said roads increasing traffic count and distance driven.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
If you're essentially arguing that Atlanta should have Birmingham's road network, then we'll agree to disagree on that point.
Birmingham, UK I could get behind as something to look to. A more populous city than Atlanta with only one four-laned highway into the city center. But I assume you meant Birmingham, AL which made many of the same mistakes as Atlanta with urban design in the 40s - 90s just with more racism that cost them a lot a major corporate relocations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
But road diets and streetscaping programs are not overall regional solutions for transportation issues in any case. The article was not making an apples to apples comparison.
Sure they are. But they go more towards encouraging density and a better use of space (and thus better use of existing transportation resources) instead of providing new transportation solutions to new areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 02:26 PM
 
29,881 posts, read 27,333,728 times
Reputation: 18427
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
What example are you looking at where people are moving to the suburbs without more and wider roads?

There have been multiple studies that show an almost one-to-one ratio between new road capacity and people relocating to use it.

Obviously "people" are moving everywhere. But there is no denying that new and wider roads tigger more people relocating to use said roads increasing traffic count and distance driven.
Sure there will be induced demand to an extent, but many of these secondary roads clearly lack the capacity for the neighborhoods they service. So unless the long term strategy is to discourage growth overall (because everyone isn't going to move to Atlanta proper), then expanding the road network will be necessary. And there are denser Sunbelt urban areas that have more expansive road networks.

Quote:
Birmingham, UK I could get behind as something to look to. A more populous city than Atlanta with only one four-laned highway into the city center. But I assume you meant Birmingham, AL which made many of the same mistakes as Atlanta with urban design in the 40s - 90s just with more racism that cost them a lot a major corporate relocations.
My point was that a metro of 6 million shouldn't have the road network one one that is a fraction of the size, and I'm pretty sure you knew I was talking about Birmingham, AL. Substitute it for any other metro of similar size (in the U.S.) and the point would be the same.

Quote:
Sure they are. But they go more towards encouraging density and a better use of space (and thus better use of existing transportation resources) instead of providing new transportation solutions to new areas.
Putting the East-West Connector on a road diet and streetscaping it for the entire length isn't a regional transportation solution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 02:57 PM
 
10,532 posts, read 7,507,853 times
Reputation: 3315
No one is proposing getting rid of every road. But the question is how do you determine what roads to build and how wide and what roads to to narrow / remove for other uses?

Because obviously there are roads and highways that are of better off never built / narrowed / removed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 03:13 PM
bu2
 
9,970 posts, read 6,425,543 times
Reputation: 4150
I found the 23% reduction on Scott St. in front of Westchester pretty hard to believe. I would guess a 23% increase would be closer to the truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,562 posts, read 7,668,850 times
Reputation: 4367
Oh geez...

The problem here is constant one-sided homer-isms again and again.

Mutiny's points are well made. The problem is they are taking things for local neighborhood building solutions and trying to apply them to region-wide networks. Those few sentences in the articles and some people's opinions are dangerously over-stretching when we could be having a healthier discussion about how to institute neighborhood building locally in areas between the regional network. That is exactly what Mutiny sought out to address.

The fact of the matter is we are a region of 6 million. Only 750,000 live inside the Perimeter and even fewer inside the city and even fewer in the city's core.

There is room for some growth, but there is not room for the whole region to live in a high-density core only setting by a long shot. This is especially true with current zoning and wide-spread historical protection of very low-density neighborhoods that were Atlanta's original streetcar and original car suburbs.

In case no one has noticed, we are only talking about 4,000 additional people in an area that use to have many empty nesters and historically already had more people back in the 1960s with fewer annexations to the city's boundary. That is a far cry from discussing how a region of 6 million people interact with one another. Rather, this is a discussion of what we can do to densify as only a part of a solution to the problem with where the next 2 million people are going to go. It isn't magical density for a one-size-fits-all regional solution, but it can be A piece to the puzzle.

Any location that wishes to remain a regional center in this city, whether it be Downtown, The Perimeter, Alpharetta, Buckhead, etc... will need a very strong regional thru-traffic regional arterial network. It is a harsh reality some need to learn.

Now this isn't to say we can't find ways to have some core neighborhood building in downtown Decatur and in other locations throughout the city... and our suburbs. Localized densification, especially near job centers, is important for the best way to include the next 2 million people into our city. However, we can't magically lower road capacity everywhere and rant and rave against a regional road-network so blindly and expect the 6 million people spread out across out landscape to function.

You want to rant against suburbanites, suburbanites growing their own job bases, and the roads they depend on. You can't have it all ways. The anti-regional pro-intown-only-cheerleading from some people continually goes too far, because truth is they moved here and just don't care about the other 5 million of us that already exist and are going to continue to exist... whether you want to admit it or not.

This is why it is a huge issue to distinguish what happens in one neighborhood vs. what happens on a larger regional network.

To add to the complexity is that Atlanta's arterial road network is very inadequate. It is very narrow in right of way and few and far between. This is why we have ended up with one-single massively big connector highway. The harsh point is we can't roll back or diet large parts of our road network, without other massive changes that would alter and increase in size other parts. We can do wither narrower boulevards and freeways, but we would need more alignments overall too.

This is something you continually miss in your rather poor European comparisons (Thank God I travel the world alot). You're wrong about Birmingham, UK. The arterial road network has many more alignments and a mixtures of one way streets and many streets that are wider than a 2 lane street. Not to mention there is a freeway spur into the center of town and a classic Euro-style loop road around the city's more historic core. I see this in hundreds of places I travel to. Even the far denser Asian cities with extremely high transit usage have many large regional arterial road networks, and they depend on them. They build road systems with a strategy in mind where the major roads are and where the denser neighborhood centers area. Sometimes the two places mix and sometimes they don't.

All of that is a far from saying there is just one 4-lane road in the center of town, rather that is wildly inaccurate of a characterization. Of course, much of this comes from a massive lack of understanding of the difference between European and North American road networks. If you want us to be like a European city, then you have to be willing to make other changes you would also argue against.

Those cities are chalk-full of heavily car traveled arterial road alignments, one way streets, large boulevards, intown loop roads. To be set up like that, we'd also have some partial neighborhood destruction to set up a better arterial network of closely placed parrallel alignment we don't have. We'd have to accept neighborhood streets being turned into thru-traffic streets in a way most people are not willing to accept.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 03:43 PM
 
10,532 posts, read 7,507,853 times
Reputation: 3315
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
I found the 23% reduction on Scott St. in front of Westchester pretty hard to believe. I would guess a 23% increase would be closer to the truth.
Increased density and road diets reducing traffic can seem counter intuitive to some but this is the reality. They do far more to improve traffic then new and wider roads that metro Atlanta has been trying for decades.

Hopefully even the more car centric among us can get behind these changes soon becuase they make quality of life better for everyone including drivers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top