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.
Yes, building a parking deck instead of a street car line certainly will kick the amount of people driving to Grant Park up a notch. But that still doesn't make it the right thing. There is already enough parking in the area without spending $48M on this new deck. We should give people the option of taking rail transit between Grant Park and downtown instead of using our tax dollars to build yet more parking.
Most people might still drive, but lets at least give the folks that want a real transit option that choice. Every car trip off the road makes a difference in improving the quality of life of all, including those who drive. That means less traffic and more parking spaces available for those still in their cars.
However, most people, especially those with kids or old folks in tow, will probably prefer to drive. I'm not being anti-transit, I'm just saying we'll get more bang for the buck with a nice, aesthetically designed parking deck.
There is already enough parking in the area without spending $48M on this new deck.
So, just so I'm clear, you would rather have two separate multi-acre surface parking lots and the extra traffic on Cherokee, than several new acres of green space and traffic mostly removed from Cherokee making it safer for pedestrians and cyclists? Please, no deflection. If you're going to answer, please answer that specific question, yes or no.
Quote:
We should give people the option of taking rail transit between Grant Park and downtown instead of using our tax dollars to build yet more parking.
Stop saying "yet more parking". Repeating it over and over does not make it any more true. Two huge free surface lots are being removed and consolidated into one (paid?) deck.
Quote:
Most people might still drive, but lets at least give the folks that want a real transit option that choice. Every car trip off the road makes a difference in improving the quality of life of all, including those who drive. That means less traffic and more parking spaces available for those still in their cars.
I think you'd be removing a minuscule amount of traffic from the road. Like, not even a dent's worth. And if you were really concerned about quality of life, you'd be cheering multiple acres of new green space and the relocation of the vast majority of cars from Cherokee. Again, this is not about safety or choice. This is about you winning.
So, just so I'm clear, you would rather have two separate multi-acre surface parking lots and the extra traffic on Cherokee, than several new acres of green space and traffic mostly removed from Cherokee making it safer for pedestrians and cyclists? Please, no deflection. If you're going to answer, please answer that specific question, yes or no.
You seem to be under the impression that our choice is only to spend $48M on this parking deck or nothing at all. If this money was coming from a private source that dictated that it could only be used for this parking deck, then sure build the deck.
But that is not the choice. The choice is: CoA tax dollars for this parking deck with a green roof, or 4X the new park land, or a new transit line, or more police funding, or buy up almost all the remainder of the land for the Beltline, or hundreds of other options. Which do you choose? Do you really think this is the best way to spend $48M tax dollars? Please, no deflection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
Stop saying "yet more parking". Repeating it over and over does not make it any more true. Two huge free surface lots are being removed and consolidated into one (paid?) deck.
The parking lot on Cherokee is not going away. This is adding more parking and a green roof on top of an already underused parking lot.
However, most people, especially those with kids or old folks in tow, will probably prefer to drive. I'm not being anti-transit, I'm just saying we'll get more bang for the buck with a nice, aesthetically designed parking deck.
Walking a mile for King Memorial MARTA or transferring to a bus that runs every 45 mins on weekends is not a viable option for most families.
If one mode of transportation is fine with the existing facilities at Grant Park, it is cars. We don't need to attract any cars to the area anyways. We got to stop this mentality of penny pinching when it comes to transit but blowing millions of tax dollars of a luxury parking deck when the existing parking facilities are just fine.
Getting rail transit to the park would be a real win for accessibility. Or even better build a new park that will be in walking distance of more Atlanta families.
You seem to be under the impression that our choice is only to spend $48M on this parking deck or nothing at all. If this money was coming from a private source that dictated that it could only be used for this parking deck, then sure build the deck.
But that is not the choice. The choice is: CoA tax dollars for this parking deck with a green roof, or 4X the new park land, or a new transit line, or more police funding, or buy up almost all the remainder of the land for the Beltline, or hundreds of other options. Which do you choose? Do you really think this is the best way to spend $48M tax dollars? Please, no deflection.
So, you didn't even bother to answer my question, instead giving deflection, then ask me to answer your questions without deflection? Nice try.
Quote:
The parking lot on Cherokee is not going away. This is adding more parking and a green roof on top of an already underused parking lot.
So, is this article, provided by one of the other uber-urbanists on this forum, false? Can you provide a source to back up your claim?
As far as :"underused", I call complete and total bulls**t. We have been members of the zoo for years, and parking there is always a pain. You are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh
Walking a mile for King Memorial MARTA or transferring to a bus that runs every 45 mins on weekends is not a viable option for most families.
Neither is getting to downtown and then getting on a streetcar.
So, you didn't even bother to answer my question, instead giving deflection, then ask me to answer your questions without deflection? Nice try.
I answered your question. If this was a situation where this money would be lit on fire if it wasn't used on this deck, then yes, build the deck. But your question is not the reality, is it? There are a hundred better uses for these millions tax dollars. So now it is your turn to stop deflecting, do you really not think there are better uses of $48M tax dollars than this parking deck? New Parks? Transit? Roads? Police?
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
So, is this article, provided by one of the other uber-urbanists on this forum, false? Can you provide a source to back up your claim?
Ah, I missed that. You are right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
As far as :"underused", I call complete and total bulls**t. We have been members of the zoo for years, and parking there is always a pain. You are wrong.
Well, I used to commute past there every day, and was just over there the other month during the Lantern festival, multiple parking spaces to be found.
Now, could that parking be better managed by charging for it? Yes. But that doesn't change that you can already find parking anytime in the area. How many times in the last ten years have you been unable to find free parking within a couple blocks of the park? I am going to go with zero, because I have been around Grant Park and Midtown a whole bunch, GP is certainly easier parking yet in Midtown I keep my car parked on the street every night and there was never a single time I couldn't find free parking in the couple years I had a car there.
And honestly, zoo members & visitors like you are the ones that should be picking up the tab for this fancy deck. Not the general public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
Neither is getting to downtown and then getting on a streetcar.
Downtown is already a destination for millions of visiting families each year. They are already there with tens of thousands of others that live and work there every day including people going back and forth. We should like them along with the rest of the metro together with transit.
No, you didn't. If the money is spent elsewhere, then the current situation of large surface lots, less green space, and busy traffic on Cherokee stays. You did not say that you would prefer that situation. But I'll take your roundabout answer as a "yes".
Quote:
Well, I used to commute past there every day, and was just over there the other month during the Lantern festival, multiple parking spaces to be found.
Now, could that parking be better managed by charging for it? Yes. But that doesn't change that you can already find parking anytime in the area. How many times in the last ten years have you been unable to find free parking within a couple blocks of the park?
The zoo had almost a million visitors last year, and has a few hundred spaces at its main entrance. The vast majority of those arrive by car, as there is little other viable way to get there. If only 75% of visitors arrive by vehicle (doubftul, likely far more), and every car has four people (doubtful), that comes to around 500 cars per day, every day. But, since likely more than 75% of those visitors arrive by car, and fewer than 4 per car average, there's no way that their lot is near-empty most of the time.
As far as parking within a few blocks? Sure. But, then we're talking about driving down neighborhood streets, which is exactly what I'm looking to get rid of, to make that area much safer for the families who live there.
Quote:
And honestly, zoo members & visitors like you are the ones that should be picking up the tab for this fancy deck. Not the general public.
You mean when we pay the fee to park there? Sure.
Should I have to pick up the tab for bike lanes, wide sidewalks, fancy pedestrian crossings, new transit, and other things I don't use? We all pay for things we don't use. That's part of living in society. And, by the way, I gladly pay for those things, even if they are of little to no use to me.
Quote:
Downtown is already a destination for millions of visiting families each year. They are already there with tens of thousands of others that live and work there every day including people going back and forth. We should like them along with the rest of the metro together with transit.
You think charging for the Zoo lots and keeping the neighborhoods free to park is going make less people search for parking in the neighborhoods? Fat chance. There needs to be an area wide parking management solution. Not just throwing money at a parking deck.
Also, you do know there is a way to fix the problem of "there is little other viable way to get there [besides a car]", right? But that means we would have to spend money on things like bike infrastructure or transit instead of your beloved parking deck.
Which brings us back to the question you keep dodging: is this really the best use of the $48M tax dollars? Do you prioritize this deck higher than transit, fixing pot holes, more park space, the Beltline, police funding, or a hundred other potential things?
You think charging for the Zoo lots and keeping the neighborhoods free to park is going make less people search for parking in the neighborhoods? Fat chance.
With the entrance to the zoo moving across the park to Boulevard, I think plenty of people will pay the fee to park, as long as it is remotely feasible. Make the fee $5...they will pay it. Make it $20, they will not. If there is enough parking available, most people will not attempt to park across a street like Boulevard, then ferry themselves over in order to save a few bucks, especially with children in tow. Will a few? Sure.
But, a big part of the issue you are missing is that those people would almost all be coming from Boulevard, and not necessarily driving through the neighborhoods to get to the zoo. I know we, and a lot of other visitors, currently drive directly through the Summerhill and western Grant Park neighborhoods to get there. Through traffic is quite a bit different than a few cars parked along the sides of a few roads.
Quote:
Also, you do know there is a way to fix the problem of "there is little other viable way to get there [besides a car]", right? But that means we would have to spend money on things like bike infrastructure or transit instead of your beloved parking deck.
Bike infrastructure is not changing anything. I mean, in your utopia maybe, but in reality, it will do almost nothing. But, I stated that there is little current viable way to get there to support my claim that those lots can't possibly be empty all the time. I believe you are lying. Whether a streetcar would take many cars off the road is debatable. I believe it would do fairly little, seeing how little current streetcar is utilized, and this one would have far fewer destinations.
Quote:
Which brings us back to the question you keep dodging: is this really the best use of the $48M tax dollars? Do you prioritize this deck higher than transit, fixing pot holes, more park space, the Beltline, police funding, or a hundred other potential things?
Is it the best use? Of course not. The best use would be to fund homeless children or something.
Look, I'd be fine if they just moved the entrance to the Boulevard side and left it with acres and acres of free surface parking. No skin off my back. saves me money, and still makes it easier for me. But you've come up with every possible reason that it's a terrible idea, mostly based on either falsehoods, or directly contradicting your usual stance on stuff...like "pedestrian safety". There is no project where money couldn't be better used. Their is better use for our money than the Beltline, bike lanes, safe crosswalks, highways, or anything else you could name. There's always something better we could do with a finite amount of money. Always.
But, I see adding tons of green space, and removing traffic from a smaller neighborhood road onto an interstate-connected road, and consolidating all parking into a small area instead of 11 acres worth as quite a worthy reason to spend some money.
There is already a parking lot on Boulevard that spends its time mostly empty even when it is free. There is not much gain by making people that were already closer to the Cherokee lot drive around to pay for parking in this new deck... or just park on the surface streets for free on that side. I'll give you one guess what most people will do. Even if you only change $1 for parking.
This plan is just not well thought out.
But glad we are at least making progress on that there are better uses for this $48M tax dollars and I agree if money was no option we should build the deck. Now the question is, where do you rank this project in value against all the other options we are discussing like building much more new parks or transit to Grant Park (which would be an extension of the downtown streetcar system, so it would obviously go more places) instead of this deck.
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.
