U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
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)
 
Old 06-08-2018, 09:13 PM
 
10,159 posts, read 7,153,092 times
Reputation: 3137

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
I see that you still won't answer the question: do you, or do you not, agree that neighborhood roads like those that you live on and others around you, are used in the majority by neighborhood inhabitants?
Depends on the road. Glenwood certainly has far more traffic from outside the neighborhood. As does Bill Kennedy Way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
Related question: do you, or do you not, agree that your neighborhood roads should be ONLY for those who live on said road and that no other person should ever drive on them?
Of course not. But it should be designed with high speed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
Okay? I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Glenwood has bike lanes only from Moreland to Cameron, which is less than a mile (unless more have been added since the end of 2017). Flat Shoals has no bike lanes north of May (unless more have been added since the end of 2017). Moreland has no bike lanes. I didn't see hardly any bikers or walkers today, but maybe they sleep in late. Saw plenty of cars parked in the street, though. I guess no one there uses them though...must be for decoration.

But...it should be noted that Glenwood east of Moreland is GA State Route 260, paid for by...wait for it...fuel taxes. Moreland is GA State Route 24, paid for by...wait for it...fuel taxes. Memorial Dr is GA State Route 154, paid for by...wait for it...fuel taxes. Little roads like Sanders, Faith, and the roads through Glenwood Park serve no purpose for commuters, and I doubt very, very few cut through those. So, I really don't know what you're trying to say. The only people using those roads are the people who live there. Thus, property tax is a perfectly viable source of income for those roads. Even if you are a car-free person, you still have mail delivery, package delivery, pizza delivery, maintenance people, fire and police, etc. Those roads are maintained for your benefit as a resident, even if you do not specifically drive on them. Property tax covers that.

Yeah..they're walking in the street. That's not "designed for walkers and bikers".
Cars parked on the street are great. It slows down traffic and makes it safer for walkers and bikers. I am actually hopeful some other streets in the neighborhood will get rid of their "no parking" signs in the future.

Slowing down traffic and making bikers and walker feel welcome in the middle of the street is the one of the best and most affordable ways to design a street for pedestrians and bikers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
Cool. I think Bill Kennedy should be closed to car traffic altogether, or most definitely cut off from the interstate. It's a stupid road.
We agree fully there!

Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
Okay. Doubt you'd be able to argue that successfully with the cop if you were walking down the middle of Glenwood, but sure.
Just goes to show how much design matters. That "bike lane" in the gutter of Glenwood Ave is terrible. I almost always ride in the middle of the street instead of that bike lane when going down Glenwood. It would be far better off if they removed all markings on Glenwood and allowed on-street parking like most of the rest of the neighborhood.


Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
So, your point was that "my commercial building in the center of south downtown has a higher tax rate than your neighborhood townhome"? Oh, sorry...I didn't realize we were being obtuse. I thought we were comparing like properties. How very silly of me.
Seriously? Are you debating this? There are exceptions we can make up to every rule but do you think that in general, land / buildings is more expensive or less expensive closer to the core? Take the exact same building / size of property, will it be more valuable / pay more property taxes closer to or further from the center of the city?

 
Old 06-09-2018, 09:08 AM
 
4,549 posts, read 3,000,499 times
Reputation: 2960
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
Depends on the road. Glenwood certainly has far more traffic from outside the neighborhood. As does Bill Kennedy Way.
Those are collector and/or arterial roads, not local neighborhood roads. Your point does not stand.

Quote:
Of course not. But it should be designed with high speed.
Yes! High Speed!

I still don't see where you're getting this "high speed" argument from. We're talking about how the road is funded.

Quote:
Cars parked on the street are great. It slows down traffic and makes it safer for walkers and bikers. I am actually hopeful some other streets in the neighborhood will get rid of their "no parking" signs in the future.

Slowing down traffic and making bikers and walker feel welcome in the middle of the street is the one of the best and most affordable ways to design a street for pedestrians and bikers.
I guess we have two very different definitions of "designed for bikers and walkers". In the end, the small minority should not take precedence at all times. That is illogical, and not remotely geared towards safety.

Quote:
Just goes to show how much design matters. That "bike lane" in the gutter of Glenwood Ave is terrible. I almost always ride in the middle of the street instead of that bike lane when going down Glenwood. It would be far better off if they removed all markings on Glenwood and allowed on-street parking like most of the rest of the neighborhood.
Collector road that is barely wide enough. You can't celebrate your narrow roads then also want all the amenities of a wider road.

Quote:
Seriously? Are you debating this? There are exceptions we can make up to every rule but do you think that in general, land / buildings is more expensive or less expensive closer to the core? Take the exact same building / size of property, will it be more valuable / pay more property taxes closer to or further from the center of the city?
That wasn't the argument. But, who the **** cares? The point is that small neighborhood roads like the one that you live on and those around you (not arterial and collector roads) are used almost exclusively by neighborhood residents and their visitors/deliveries/contractors. Those roads are paid for by their property taxes, as they should be. Collector and arterial roads such as the larger roads running through the business areas of your neighborhood are paid for by a mixture of fuel taxes and local property taxes. These roads are for everyone, and everyone should chip in, including you, even if you never drive on them.

You do understand how transparent and self-serving nearly every argument of yours is, don't you? Almost every argument is trying to take every burden off yourself, and put onto others to pay for you. Transit should be paid for by others. Roads should be paid for by others. Streetscapes should be paid for by others. Bike lanes should be paid for by others. And you? You get a nearly fully-subsidized life out of the deal. And you wonder why people such as myself focus on your arguments.
 
Old 06-09-2018, 09:34 AM
bu2
 
9,305 posts, read 5,958,368 times
Reputation: 3734
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
Those are collector and/or arterial roads, not local neighborhood roads. Your point does not stand.



Yes! High Speed!

I still don't see where you're getting this "high speed" argument from. We're talking about how the road is funded.



I guess we have two very different definitions of "designed for bikers and walkers". In the end, the small minority should not take precedence at all times. That is illogical, and not remotely geared towards safety.



Collector road that is barely wide enough. You can't celebrate your narrow roads then also want all the amenities of a wider road.



That wasn't the argument. But, who the **** cares? The point is that small neighborhood roads like the one that you live on and those around you (not arterial and collector roads) are used almost exclusively by neighborhood residents and their visitors/deliveries/contractors. Those roads are paid for by their property taxes, as they should be. Collector and arterial roads such as the larger roads running through the business areas of your neighborhood are paid for by a mixture of fuel taxes and local property taxes. These roads are for everyone, and everyone should chip in, including you, even if you never drive on them.

You do understand how transparent and self-serving nearly every argument of yours is, don't you? Almost every argument is trying to take every burden off yourself, and put onto others to pay for you. Transit should be paid for by others. Roads should be paid for by others. Streetscapes should be paid for by others. Bike lanes should be paid for by others. And you? You get a nearly fully-subsidized life out of the deal. And you wonder why people such as myself focus on your arguments.
Cars parked on the street make it more dangerous for children. Drivers can't see them when they run out between cars. To some extent that is also true for adults. It also creates more accidents. That's why they got rid of parking on the streets in downtowns in the 60s and 70s.
 
Old 06-09-2018, 09:41 AM
 
1,928 posts, read 1,658,478 times
Reputation: 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
Cars parked on the street make it more dangerous for children. Drivers can't see them when they run out between cars. To some extent that is also true for adults. It also creates more accidents. That's why they got rid of parking on the streets in downtowns in the 60s and 70s.
Yep. Cars parked on the curb cut down the visibility. A lot of drivers slow their speed to compensate, but the ones that don't create a dangerous situation. If a road is only local traffic then very few people speed, but if it's a cut through it gets ugly.

ETA: There is a third situation where there is enough traffic that the cars driving a safe speed slow the speeders down. This is rare on residential streets but more common in commercial/retail districts.

Last edited by brown_dog_us; 06-09-2018 at 09:47 AM.. Reason: poor grammar
 
Old 06-09-2018, 02:37 PM
 
10,159 posts, read 7,153,092 times
Reputation: 3137
There is no study I have ever seen supporting removing on street parking improves safety for pedestrians. It is only supported by people's theories about sight lines.

That is the same sort of logic that is used to justify removing trees next to roads and treating sidewalks as "recovery zones" for speeding vehicles.

But street width (which on-street parking reduces) is a huge factor improving safety / speed and supported by multiple studies.

This street is far safer for pedestrians / bikes (seriously, try to get above 15mph driving down it):



than this one (many go down this at 45mph without realizing it):


Last edited by jsvh; 06-09-2018 at 02:46 PM..
 
Old 06-09-2018, 03:06 PM
 
10,159 posts, read 7,153,092 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
Those are collector and/or arterial roads, not local neighborhood roads.
Sorry, I do not recognize "collector and/or arterial roads" as not belonging to a neighborhood. Anything that would fall into the "street" category below belongs to the neighborhood and should be designed as such.

Most of these intown neighborhoods were built in a largely grid-like pattern and I do not recognize cars as more deserving of priority over other modes on any street you arbitrarily decide to designate as a "collector". Designing around "collector" streets instead of a grid is a terrible way to design neighborhoods.

Only roads and highways (which should not have more than a couple intersections / driveways every mile) should be designed to give cars exclusive RoW. Those should be 100% funded by gas taxes or other direct user fees for cars.

On the other end, streets should be designed for slow, local traffic of all modes to share the street. Those can be funded by local property taxes.



And since bikes and walkers put basically no wear on those streets they are still disproportionately over-paying for those streets compared to their neighbors but that is acceptable since there is not a better way to fund those streets.

Just get off the high horse that intown folks that don't own cars are not pulling more than their share of the infrastructure tab. That is straight wrong. They are often the first to vote to pick up a larger tab when in comes to expanding infrastructure. Meanwhile suburbanites and exurbs are often quick to shoot down gas taxes needed to support even their existing car infrastructure let alone to keep expanding it.

Last edited by jsvh; 06-09-2018 at 03:15 PM..
 
Old 06-09-2018, 03:15 PM
 
4,549 posts, read 3,000,499 times
Reputation: 2960
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
That is the same sort of logic that is used to justify removing trees next to roads and treating sidewalks as "recovery zones" for speeding vehicles.
....what? Where is a sidewalk labeled as a "recovery zone" for vehicles? A recovery zone is a buffer (usually grass) between the sidewalk and the road in case a child steps or wheelchair rolls off the sidewalk.

Quote:
This street is far safer for pedestrians / bikes (seriously, try to get above 15mph driving down it):
Challenge accepted. I will hit this street next week and report back to you. The speed limit is 25 MPH. I have no doubts that going above 15 is very standard. 15 is SLOW.[/quote]
 
Old 06-09-2018, 03:48 PM
 
4,549 posts, read 3,000,499 times
Reputation: 2960
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
Sorry, I do not recognize "collector and/or arterial roads" as not belonging to a neighborhood. Anything that would fall into the "street" category below belongs to the neighborhood and should be designed as such.
So, basically, everything inside the perimeter should be a low-speed, neighborhood, 20 MPH road, except for the interstates. As long as someone lives anywhere near it and might come into contact with it on foot, it should be a low-speed street.

Keep in mind that the entire business area of Glenwood Park grew around the existing road. The road was not made that way to serve the area. Seems like people found that type of road useful in getting to and from the area.

Quote:
Most of these intown neighborhoods were built in a largely grid-like pattern and I do not recognize cars as more deserving of priority over other modes on any street you arbitrarily decide to designate as a "collector". Designing around "collector" streets instead of a grid is a terrible way to design neighborhoods.
That whole area barely resembles a grid. Yeah..it's got some streets that go North/South, and some streets that go East/West. But, it's also got diagonal roads, curving roads, and the vast majority of the roads are less than half a mile long long. That's not a grid.

As far as what you "recognize", I'm sure someone out there cares. You seem to forget that cars are not some autonomous object making its own decisions. They are driven by people going places, and they are what more than 90% of people in this city choose to get around by. Tell me, why should pedestrians and bikers get priority? Like, an actual reason. Moving people around is the sole purpose of our infrastructure. Prioritizing it to the absolute slowest method possible of moving around is a harebrained idea.

Quote:
Only roads and highways (which should not have more than a couple intersections / driveways every mile) should be designed to give cars exclusive RoW. Those should be 100% funded by gas taxes or other direct user fees for cars.
And neighborhood roads are used almost exclusively by people living in them. They should be funded 100% by property taxes. I don't care if you want to dig up every road in your neighborhood and make it solely walking. I doubt you could find more than one other person in your neighborhood to agree with you, but that's your place, not mine.

But, collector and arterial roads are paramount in a functioning city. Can you find one major city on this planet that does not have decent-sized roads running right through every area. It's ludicrous not to have them. Everyone, except you apparently, knows this.

Quote:
On the other end, streets should be designed for slow, local traffic of all modes to share the street. Those can be funded by local property taxes.
And that's what your neighborhood roads and back roads are. Not your main thoroughfares. You can still have a walkable main thoroughfare, as shown all over the world, but that doesn't mean it's going to be a tiny street with people walking through the middle of it. That's just not real life. It's pure fantasy.

Quote:
And since bikes and walkers put basically no wear on those streets they are still disproportionately over-paying for those streets compared to their neighbors but that is acceptable since there is not a better way to fund those streets.
Yeah, and non-users are much more disproportionately paying for your sidewalks, your bike lanes, your trails, and your trains. It works both ways, dude. If you can find a way for users of sidewalks, bike paths, and transit to solely fund it, I would be happy to solely fund main roads (which, as proven earlier, we mostly do).

Quote:
Just get off the high horse that intown folks that don't own cars are not pulling more than their share of the infrastructure tab. That is straight wrong.
No, it's seriously not. It's been proven to you over and over and over. You simply refuse to respond to any data put forth that shows as much...even YOUR OWN LINK. I asked not once, but at least three times for you to respond to my numbers (with sources) regarding MARTA user cost share, and road user cost share. You never did.

Quote:
They are often the first to vote to pick up a larger tab when in comes to expanding infrastructure. Meanwhile suburbanites and exurbs are often quick to shoot down gas taxes needed to support even their existing car infrastructure let alone to keep expanding it.
Our state gas taxes have gone up more than 60% in the last three years, and will continue to be indexed to CPI. Did you see an apocalypse? Did you even know??

Reality is obviously not your friend, but you should really look into it. There's a way for us all to have everything we want, but your all-or-nothing, winner-takes-all, screw-you-I-want-mine approach is never going to win followers. It will just result in lulz.
 
Old 06-09-2018, 04:21 PM
 
10,159 posts, read 7,153,092 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
....what? Where is a sidewalk labeled as a "recovery zone" for vehicles? A recovery zone is a buffer (usually grass) between the sidewalk and the road in case a child steps or wheelchair rolls off the sidewalk.

Quote:
Clear Zone—The unobstructed, traversable area provided beyond the edge of the through traveled way for the recovery of errant vehicles. The clear zone includes shoulders, bike lanes, and auxiliary lanes, except those auxiliary lanes that function like through lanes.
http://downloads.transportation.org/RSDG-4-Errata.pdf
refrenced via GDOT manuels: http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/D...y/GDOT-DPM.pdf

Also:

Quote:
Where is the appropriate location for above ground utility structures?
FHWA policy is that utility facilities should be located as close to the right-of-way line as feasible. The Green Book, AASHTO Highway Safety Design and Operations Guide, 1997, (Yellow Book) and the AASHTO A Guide for Accommodating Utilities within Highway Right-of-way, all state that utilities should be located as close to the right-of-way line as feasible. The Yellow Book, recognizing that crashes are overrepresented on urban arterials and collectors, says this means as far as practical behind the face of outer curbs and where feasible, behind the sidewalks.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/clearzone.cfm

Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
Challenge accepted. I will hit this street next week and report back to you. The speed limit is 25 MPH. I have no doubts that going above 15 is very standard. 15 is SLOW.
Um, That was not intended as a literal challenge for you to try to go that fast. I'd prefer you just take a speed detector and report back with average speeds than end up running over anyone in my neighborhood.
 
Old 06-09-2018, 04:46 PM
 
10,159 posts, read 7,153,092 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
So, basically, everything inside the perimeter should be a low-speed, neighborhood, 20 MPH road, except for the interstates. As long as someone lives anywhere near it and might come into contact with it on foot, it should be a low-speed street.
Yep. It needs to be designed as a Street or a Road (or interstate). "Stroads" don't work.


Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
That whole area barely resembles a grid. Yeah..it's got some streets that go North/South, and some streets that go East/West. But, it's also got diagonal roads, curving roads, and the vast majority of the roads are less than half a mile long long. That's not a grid.

As far as what you "recognize", I'm sure someone out there cares. You seem to forget that cars are not some autonomous object making its own decisions. They are driven by people going places, and they are what more than 90% of people in this city choose to get around by. ... Moving people around is the sole purpose of our infrastructure. Prioritizing it to the absolute slowest method possible of moving around is a harebrained idea.
Atlanta, including Ormewood. Was actually built on a fairly decent grid. And "grid" does not just mean all blocks are perfect squares, but that there is a lot of connectivity and not long, winding roads without intersections and dead ends / cul-de-sacs.



And I am sorry you think a city centered around walkability is a "harebrained idea" but it is how cities have been built and thrived for the majority of human history, it is the key to prosperity for cities today, and has public support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
Tell me, why should pedestrians and bikers get priority? Like, an actual reason.
Cheaper, more capacity, more equitable, better urban design, more environmentally friendly / more sustainable, more accessible, safer, healthier, and then there is the fact that you simply cannot move everyone around a large city by car.
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.


Closed Thread


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.

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