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.
First off, Lawrenceville Hwy itself (US 29) turns at Hugh Howell and is parallel to Main Street. It absolutely takes traffic north
And Brockett is too far down the road to matter? It's half a mile from Main yet somehow Memorial Drive and N Decatur at over 1 mile away will be used as the substitutes for Avondale Estates. That or some of the residential streets.
And again, Main Street is not a major thoroughfare. And that's in large part due to Chamblee Tucker/Fellowship and that short section of 29 as well as the fact that Main street ends at a school. That alone shows how different the two are.
They are absolutely not irrelevant when they're part of a 1.7 mile loop around the town center.
My mom used to work just NE of Tucker when I wasn't old enough to drive. I spent a summer riding with her to run errands for the company like going to the bank or to the post office as well as to get lunch. I know the traffic patterns there pretty well and absolutely know how well that loop works to isolate the town center. I saw a whole lot of 29, Lavista and Mountain Industrial (another road nearby) and I never once saw the town center because that little loop was able to handle everything.
Those are a mile to a mile and a half away and don't help with local traffic that much. Not like in Tucker. Maybe regional traffic but those roads have their own problems.
Look, I get it. I like Norcross because Buford Hwy doesn't go blasting through along the RR tracks. But Buford Hwy is maybe a quarter mile away. That works because there's an obvious through route very close. Now, Holcomb Bridge on the other hand does have a lot of traffic that cuts through Norcross (something my mom and I have both down countless times. I literally grew up cutting through Norcross). JCB is .75 miles away and has its own congestion problems and doesn't help with getting NE of Norcross so people cut through all the time over to where Beaver Ruin ends.
You totally whiffed on the point I was making.
The amount of traffic on Main Street then and now has been consistent, and reducing the number of lanes has not created a hardship for anyone. Yet it has lead to a variety of benefits for business owners and the public. This is exactly what will happen in Avondale.
285-78-Scott Blvd. Problem solved. You're not entitled to a direct route with no turns.
So, five extra miles. Sounds reasonable. This is why Atlanta's traffic is so messed up, you often have to take seven different roads just to get somewhere three miles straight east of you.
Can't the same be said for your preferred modes: you're not entitled to a sidewalk with no curb cuts, median-separated bike lanes, or street-front retail with no parking lots to cross? I think those things are great, but again...this is why people scoff at some of your arguments. You guys get quite condescending about it.
US 278 is 2 lanes just east of here to Memorial Dr; how is keeping it 4 lane thru the village hurting anything other than the businesses and peds?
It is? Damn! I wish someone had told me! The quote below might be relevant here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
So, the road is two-lane on the east side Clarendon, and reduces back to two-lane about a mile and a half west. So really, all this is doing is making that mile and a half a two-lane road and removing some of the turn lanes from the small downtown area. Will probably create some backups, push a few cars onto the side streets, and drive some people away from going there, but certainly not the end of the world.
It's almost like I agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPD
We've already been over this. Repeating yourself isn't going to change my position.
Pretty sure that was the first time I have ever talked about Tucker's downtown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPD
The amount of traffic on Main Street then and now has been consistent, and reducing the number of lanes has not created a hardship for anyone. Yet it has lead to a variety of benefits for business owners and the public. This is exactly what will happen in Avondale.
So, you're still comparing a minor cross road that does not connect to anything with a fairly major cross-town commuting road? I get it, I don't think this lane closure will do much, but the two roads are not in the least bit comparable. It's basically like comparing Peachtree to Pine St.
I'll give you one example: Downtown Tucker. They used to have a four lane road as a Main Street, and the area was a ghost town littered with shuttered businesses. Look at it now that they've reduced it to a two lane road: the entire street is lined with restaurants and businesses, Matthews Cafeteria has expanded their hours and now serve weekend brunch, etc. This is not because people have been driven away by the road diet. Quite the opposite, actually. Road diets in cases like this help create places where people enjoy spending time. Wide sidewalks, al fresco dining, etc. was not possible before. Now it is, and people like it. The traffic is similar to before, except now, instead of people passing through, they're stopping, getting out of the cars, and spending time and money.
How is this not what we want?
This is indeed a reason given in favor of road diets.
In fact, I bet there are plenty of folks who actually agree with many of the sentiments but are turned off by the hyperbolic rantings of people like jsvh, and turn against their ideas.
Sam, can you elaborate on what exactly you have against me? I am often direct and do not try to hide my thoughts on a subject, but I always strive to bring sources and supporting data to the discussion. Sometimes even spending hours researching / finding data on things I am interested in and sharing it. I welcome people playing devil's advocate, I often do it myself. It plays an important part in a discussion. But it sounds like you have something directly against me.
This is indeed a reason given in favor of road diets.
Because like anything, there's no black and white, no "road diets work" "road diets never work." You have to look at each case and analyze based on the unique characteristics of the situation. For the record, I love Tucker's road diet, I wish more could actually be done for its downtown. But that's because, here, it works. Let's take a look at some other downtowns shall we?
Stone Mountain: Another good example of "it works." The traffic calming measure didn't significantly slow the traffic through there and most traffic has good alternate routes anyways.
Clarkston: There's not much through traffic on this segment of E. Ponce de Leon so like Stone Mountain, there won't be much effect.
Lithonia: Main street isn't a thoroughfare to anywhere. Max Cleland happily takes all the through traffic off of Main street.
Marietta: The CBD and Square happily sits within a bunch of existing, small roads. Any through traffic is well handled by N/S Marietta Parkway.
Austell: This is a perfect example, in fact an even better example to compare Avondale to. They have a downtown on both sides of a 4+ lane highway, and major railroad track. Yet, they didn't try to squeeze down Veterans Memorial Highway.
Duluth: Straddles both sides of Buford highway. Just try suggesting putting Buford highway (any segment) on a road diet.
Lawrenceville: Crogan and Pike are three lanes one way separated by a block. No one accuses Lawrenceville of being unwalkable or pedestrian-unfriendly.
McDonough: Like Lawrenceville, the main road (U.S. 23) is two three-lane one-ways separated by a block. No issues there, still quite nice.
Frankly, it looks like all of these places cope just fine either by having bypasses (which Avondale can't do) or embracing the large road and making do. That's why I earlier suggested splitting 278 into a pair of one-ways (absorbing S. Avondale for the EB direction) and make a better park out of the island.
As to earlier comments about having two-lane roads on each side. The two-lane segment East of Clarendon needs to be widened to four, sorry it just does. Frankly, so should E Ponce between Clarendon and N Decatur. But the western segment is already past Decatur and handles its traffic, even at rush hour, quite well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh
Sam, can you elaborate on what exactly you have against me? I am often direct and do not try to hide my thoughts on a subject, but I always strive to bring sources and supporting data to the discussion. Sometimes even spending hours researching / finding data on things I am interested in and sharing it. I welcome people playing devil's advocate, I often do it myself. It plays an important part in a discussion. But it sounds like you have something directly against me.
I'll take a stab at this. Quite simply, you don't bring good sources or data. The best example is this and the I-85 threads. You post a Google map claim "traffic is better!" and neglect that it shows the direct opposite of what you say, as well as ignoring the maps that others post that are almost all red. You insist, or at best ignore, people who say that their commutes are up to twice as long since the bridge collapse.
LOL, this is all you need to read to know that the Avondale road diet is a bad idea.
Well, yeah....If one is a motorist that frequently uses U.S. Highway 278/Georgia Highway 10, particularly to commute into and out of Central Atlanta on a daily basis, the prospect of a reduction in the number of automobile travel lanes on this busy commuter route understandably sounds like a really bad idea.
But, if one is a resident of the City of Avondale Estates where the city is looking to benefit from the increasing growth that is spilling over into the area from a more expensive neighboring City of Decatur by making your city more livable (by slowing down automobile traffic and making the city and downtown village area more accommodating to non-automobile traffic), the prospect of reducing the number of travel lanes, slowing automobile speeds and installing expanded facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists on this route not only sounds like a good idea but is also something that is going to be the centerpiece of your community's growth and revitalization going forward.
One thing that must be kept in mind is that while US 278/GA 10 through Avondale Estates is a state-owned and maintained highway that carries much regional commuter traffic during morning and afternoon/evening rush hours, US 278/GA 10 is also an urban street (signed North Avondale Road through the City of Avondale Estates) that carries local multimodal traffic (automobiles, bus transit, pedestrians and bicycles) to, from and between local businesses and local properties.
It is definitely not an appealing prospect if one is a motorist who uses this road to commute into and out of Central Atlanta on a daily basis, but a busy major roadway like this has to be able to accommodate multiple uses beyond just automobile travel alone, particularly if a higher-density urban community (like an Avondale Estates) requests and pushes for a more multimodal-oriented right-of-way as one of the centerpieces of their community revitalization plans.
GDOT has to extend that courtesy to Avondale Estates like they extend that courtesy to other cities and towns located directly on state-owned/maintained highways all over the Atlanta metro area and the state of Georgia.
I know that having lanes taken away from busy commuter routes is a tough concept for automobile commuters to have to accept, but "Complete Streets" and road right-of-ways shared with expanded non-automobile facilities for transit, bicyclists and pedestrians is the reality of 21st Century automobile travel and automobile commuting in and through large major metro areas like Atlanta.
I'll take a stab at this. Quite simply, you don't bring good sources or data. The best example is this and the I-85 threads. You post a Google map claim "traffic is better!" and neglect that it shows the direct opposite of what you say, as well as ignoring the maps that others post that are almost all red. You insist, or at best ignore, people who say that their commutes are up to twice as long since the bridge collapse.
Do you really think I am saying traffic is better after the I-85 closure? Because I am not.
Or the numerous articles and scientific studies on things like Braess' paradox, Induced Demand, and success with numerous other road diets?
What exactly are you offering up that you feel is better than what I have provided? What exactly would you need to see to convince you a road diet is best?
You mean like how you ignore the fact that that traffic didn't disappear and just went to other streets making them more congested?
Quote:
Or the numerous articles and scientific studies on things like Braess' paradox, Induced Demand, and success with numerous other road diets?
Many of which have been thoroughly debunked by myself and others here. Every time we do, you run away.
Quote:
What exactly are you offering up that you feel is better than what I have provided?
Local knowledge of traffic patterns for one.
Quote:
What exactly would you need to see to convince you a road diet is best?
Data that shows that it will actually make things better for the movement of people of all modes. Avondale isn't really going to get any better for pedestrians than it already is, but they can certainly make it worse for cars. There's room for improvement for bikes though, but they can do that without negatively affecting cars like they plan to.
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.
