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.
The deck blends in very nicely with the park and it makes the park and the Botanical garden much more accessible. We took some elderly friends over there just a couple of weeks ago and they never could have made a long trek on foot. Now they can get right into the center of things.
The deck blends in very nicely with the park and it makes the park and the Botanical garden much more accessible. We took some elderly friends over there just a couple of weeks ago and they never could have made a long trek on foot. Now they can get right into the center of things.
It also helped get rid of the surface lot that used to be north of the lake and Park Drive.
How did we ever survive before private car ownership?
We survived without jet planes, air conditioning, the Internet and a whole lot of other things, none of which I suspect you would want to survive without today.
You've got this backwards. The situation you describe isn't a hypothetical, It's what already happens today. People are already speeding around the residential streets because they are looking for street parking, since the existing parking facilities are maxed out as soon as they open. If nearby residents are worried about cars on their streets, it's hard to see how a several-fold increase in capacity right off the a main arterial road wouldn't be an improvement from what exists today. Even if the new deck hits capacity and folks are back to parking on streets again . . . how is that any worse with respect to traffic and parking than what residents contend with today?
It's not. This makes things much better for the surrounding neighborhoods. Instead of having to drive through neighborhoods to get there, you come off of I-20, drive half a mile down a main arterial road, and you're there. How on earth is this not better than the current situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt
Adding more parking only encourages more driving and many times visitors do not respect the residential streets and speed thru without any regard for the residents who live there.
See above. This is taking much of the residential driving away and putting it onto a major road with direct interstate access. The is hugely beneficial.
Also, its hard to do a count because of trees in the way of a satellite view, but it looks like several hundred, possibly near 1,000 spaces are being eliminated during the project with the parking deck added. So it's almost parking-space neutral. Maybe a few extra spots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeoff
It looks like this will actually increase the green footprint of the area while adding athletic fields and a restaurant, and more than doubling the amount of parking. Sounds good to me.
I don't think it doubles the amount of parking. Two parking lots are eliminated, and one is replaced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCATL
For those saying the main entrance will be on the Boulevard side, my understanding from presentations I've seen is that the parking structure will be on the Boulevard side, but the entrance will be equidistant from Cherokee and Boulevard.
See the attached picture. The Main Entry is shown on the Boulevard side of the zoo, just south of the parking deck. It is in no way closer or equidistant to Cherokee. Now, they might have a Cherokee entrance, so that would work out.
Quote:
Now, give Boulevard and Cherokee a road diet to slow people down, and I'll be happy. Add cycle tracks, widen sidewalks, provide parallel parking on Boulevard similar to Cherokee.
If you're going to keep parking on Cherokee and add bike lanes, then you're not giving Cherokee a diet...you're widening it. It's only one lane each direction as is, with parallel parking.
Disagree with adding parking on Boulevard. If the big deck is there, there should be very few occasions where additional parking is required. Make Boulevard a median-divided road with turn lanes as needed, and maybe bike lanes if they fit. Unless, of course, the residences along that road require road parking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt
How did we ever survive before private car ownership?
How did we survive before lots of things? Do you hop in your horse-drawn buggy to travel to the next state? Do you write a letter with your quill pen and attach it to a carrier pigeon when you need to get a message to someone? Do you live by candlelight and use only natural breezes to stay cool in the summer? No...you don't do any of these things, and would never want to.
If you're going to keep parking on Cherokee and add bike lanes, then you're not giving Cherokee a diet...you're widening it. It's only one lane each direction as is, with parallel parking.
Disagree with adding parking on Boulevard. If the big deck is there, there should be very few occasions where additional parking is required. Make Boulevard a median-divided road with turn lanes as needed, and maybe bike lanes if they fit. Unless, of course, the residences along that road require road parking.
Based off rough measurement using precision aerial imagery, the ROW of Cherokee Ave is 60' edge of sidewalk to sidewalk. The width of the Siemens S70 Streetcar model is 8.7' (http://www.atlantadowntown.com/_file...heet2-2014.pdf) so the lanes would be 10' wide. 4' wide sidewalks on each side= 8'. 9' parking lane (Lane Width - National Association of City Transportation Officials). 12' wide 2-way cycle track with 3' protected buffer= 15' (http://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/cycle-tracks/two-way-cycle-tracks/)
So there is enough rodway width, to urban street design standards, to accommodate everything CoA wants to do Cherokee, without widening the public ROW.
As far as Boulevard, it appears from the map (http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/D...ltonDOTmap.pdf) Boulevard is a state maintained roadway, so any improvements is GDOT's responsibility. It's public ROW is the same as Cherokee Ave, around 60'. Adding a median and protected-left turn lanes is nearly impossible, as the cost to buy the additional land would far exceed the ROW and would only encourage higher speeds.
Based off rough measurement using precision aerial imagery, the ROW of Cherokee Ave is 60' edge of sidewalk to sidewalk. The width of the Siemens S70 Streetcar model is 8.7' (http://www.atlantadowntown.com/_file...heet2-2014.pdf) so the lanes would be 10' wide. 4' wide sidewalks on each side= 8'. 9' parking lane (Lane Width - National Association of City Transportation Officials). 12' wide 2-way cycle track with 3' protected buffer= 15' (http://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/cycle-tracks/two-way-cycle-tracks/)
So there is enough rodway width, to urban street design standards, to accommodate everything CoA wants to do Cherokee, without widening the public ROW.
As far as Boulevard, it appears from the map (http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/D...ltonDOTmap.pdf) Boulevard is a state maintained roadway, so any improvements is GDOT's responsibility. It's public ROW is the same as Cherokee Ave, around 60'. Adding a median and protected-left turn lanes is nearly impossible, as the cost to buy the additional land would far exceed the ROW and would only encourage higher speeds.
I guess Cherokee currently has really wide lanes if we could go from two travel lanes and two parking lanes, to two travel lanes, a parking lane, a bike path, and two train tracks.
Boulevard, 60'...two 10' travel lanes in each direction, 10' median with cutouts for turn lanes as needed, and a 4' sidewalk on each side. 58'. You have 2' to spare. Make them 9' lanes and you have 6' to spare, enough to put a 3' (unprotected) bike lane on each side. Or you can make the median smaller and not have dedicated turn lanes, but either way, boulevard is plenty wide enough to put in a median and make it a separated road.
I guess Cherokee currently has really wide lanes if we could go from two travel lanes and two parking lanes, to two travel lanes, a parking lane, a bike path, and two train tracks.
Boulevard, 60'...two 10' travel lanes in each direction, 10' median with cutouts for turn lanes as needed, and a 4' sidewalk on each side. 58'. You have 2' to spare. Make them 9' lanes and you have 6' to spare, enough to put a 3' (unprotected) bike lane on each side. Or you can make the median smaller and not have dedicated turn lanes, but either way, boulevard is plenty wide enough to put in a median and make it a separated road.
I was going to echo what CQ stated in response regarding Cherokee. The lanes as is are VERY wide, the road is actually quite large. It can easily accommodate bike lanes/streetcar lanes while maintaining on-street parking. I think this would also result in slowing people down, which is a win-win in my book. Boulevard is unfortunately GDOT controlled, but a road diet is very necessary, in one form or another. The residents on that side of the park constantly complain about speeding. I actually avoid walking on that side of the park with a stroller mainly because of speeding, and it is near impossible to cross the street at time. Nobody stops for people in crosswalks, if they even see them there. Cherokee is much more pleasant, but there is still a need for using the width of the road for something other than cars. As is, people are already using it for biking with their kids and such, so it wouldn't hurt to give a dedicated space to do that.
In terms of the main entrance, this article describes what I was talking about:
From what I see, the main CAR entrance is on Boulevard, but you'll still have to walk from the garage to the current main entrance. The new elephant enclosure and Cyclorama will be closest to the parking garage, so I think there will still be a path to the main entrance, after you park, in the center of Boulevard and Cherokee. I don't know, could be wrong and things might have changed now, but this is what every plan I've seen presented at past GPNA meetings seems to suggest.
EDIT: You're right, I see the main entry now in the picture you attached. This is new. Can't say I'm a huge fan of that, I like it in the center of Cherokee and Boulevard, personally. If you notice on the Cherokee side, it still says "Entry Plaza", so I wonder if there might be another entry area over there?
I was going to echo what CQ stated in response regarding Cherokee. The lanes as is are VERY wide, the road is actually quite large. It can easily accommodate bike lanes/streetcar lanes while maintaining on-street parking. I think this would also result in slowing people down, which is a win-win in my book.
If narrower lanes and on-street parking don't slow folks down . . . having the streetcar plugging things up will.
I was going to echo what CQ stated in response regarding Cherokee. The lanes as is are VERY wide, the road is actually quite large. It can easily accommodate bike lanes/streetcar lanes while maintaining on-street parking. I think this would also result in slowing people down, which is a win-win in my book. Boulevard is unfortunately GDOT controlled, but a road diet is very necessary, in one form or another. The residents on that side of the park constantly complain about speeding. I actually avoid walking on that side of the park with a stroller mainly because of speeding, and it is near impossible to cross the street at time. Nobody stops for people in crosswalks, if they even see them there. Cherokee is much more pleasant, but there is still a need for using the width of the road for something other than cars. As is, people are already using it for biking with their kids and such, so it wouldn't hurt to give a dedicated space to do that.
In terms of the main entrance, this article describes what I was talking about:
From what I see, the main CAR entrance is on Boulevard, but you'll still have to walk from the garage to the current main entrance. The new elephant enclosure and Cyclorama will be closest to the parking garage, so I think there will still be a path to the main entrance, after you park, in the center of Boulevard and Cherokee. I don't know, could be wrong and things might have changed now, but this is what every plan I've seen presented at past GPNA meetings seems to suggest.
EDIT: You're right, I see the main entry now in the picture you attached. This is new. Can't say I'm a huge fan of that, I like it in the center of Cherokee and Boulevard, personally. If you notice on the Cherokee side, it still says "Entry Plaza", so I wonder if there might be another entry area over there?
Boulevard, having direct freeway access should be encouraged to be the car-dominated entrance, while Cherokee should be the alternative transportation and local-car traffic entrance. I would like to see better bicycle-parking facilities at the Cherokee entrance (covered parking, FixIt stand, valet, etc.) What does concern me is the 'limited access' street connecting Cherokee and Boulevard cutting thru the park. What do the planners mean by 'limited access'?
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.
