Should Atlanta add more lanes to "roads" (North Druid Hills: cul-de-sac, neighborhoods)

[gerrythesnake]

So that traffic can flow better? Examples include Lenox Rd, Clairmont Rd, Druid Hills Rd, etc or should we keep them pretty like they are now?

[Mostar]

They should, but I think that would just cause traffic chaos while they are expanding, having to close the already busy streets and the such.

[Mossberg]

NIMBYs, lack of right of way, and other various BS would make this prohibitively expensive if not impossible on many of those roads. But to answer your question, YES, it would be nice to see more capacity on surface roads to take the pain off of the freeways. Many times I use the freeways to drive to my destination even though it's further out of the way simply because it is faster than the lackluster surface roads and traffic lights (even during rush hour).

[Gulch]

No. Google "Induced Demand" as to why.

[ATLTJL]

As the city becomes more dense, expect to see worsening traffic in intown neighborhoods.

[Born 2 Roll]

Originally Posted by gerrythesnake

So that traffic can flow better? Examples include Lenox Rd, Clairmont Rd, Druid Hills Rd, etc or should we keep them pretty like they are now?

Well, technically, the City of Atlanta can't do anything with Clairmont and North Druid Hills roads because those roads are not located within the corporate limits of the City of Atlanta.

Below the intersection with Buford Highway, Clairmont Road is mostly a state and federally-signed road (GA Hwy 155 and US Hwy 23) whose maintenance and upkeep is mostly the responsibility of the State of Georgia.

Above the intersection with Buford Highway and on to its end at Peachtree Blvd, the remaining section of Clairmont Road is an unsigned road whose maintenance responsibilities are split amongst the governments of the new City of Brookhaven, the existing City of Chamblee and DeKalb County.

And with a width of no fewer than 4 travel lanes throughout virtually its entire length from Decatur to Chamblee, and with the roadway being lined by heavy residential and commercial development, Clairmont Road is most-likely as wide as it is ever going to be.

The section of North Druid Hills Road that you are referring to (that is mostly only 2 lanes in width) between East Roxboro and Peachtree roads lies under the jurisdiction of the new City of Brookhaven.

The section of Lenox Road that you are referring to (that is mostly 2-3 lanes between Buford Hwy and East Paces Ferry Road), while it lies within and is the responsibility of the City of Atlanta, also is lined with very-heavy and very-dense residential development (much of which is of the higher-end affluent type of residential development) and would likely never be allowed to be widened at the behest of the ultra-powerful Buckhead Coalition of (Buckhead-area) neighborhood associations and community groups, virtually all of which are hardcore anti-road expansionists.

Besides, at this point, the City of Atlanta is effectively out of the road-expansion business as almost all of the discussion these days does not revolve around adding lanes to roads to make vehicular traffic flow better, but revolves around taking lanes away from vehicular traffic so that more bicyclists and pedestrians can use urban streets and roadways with much better ease.

The trend of the future in intown urban areas like Atlanta is not widening roads for vehicular traffic, but contracting and/or shrinking roads to motivate more people to use transit and to better accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians.

[jambo101]

Usually around urban areas widening the roads is only a temporary fix as more people will take advantage of the widened roads to move to the suburbs then the improved roads are again clogged with commuters

[ATLJR]

As others have said, because of the concept of induced demand, road widening is rarely the answer. Unfortunately for many parts of the Atlanta metro area, the cul-de-sac neighborhoods which rely heavily on arterial roads that feed into more arterial roads are always going to lead to high levels of traffic at even low levels of density. Not only does this sort of urban planning lead to high traffic, but reduces walkability and the functionality of other transportation options such as buses, bicycles, and so on.

Cities that are doing well (growing, attracting business, etc.) are always going to have traffic. Traffic is a part of cities, and this is a good thing, because if you don't have traffic you're probably living in Gary, Indiana. Because of induced demand, the key is to find ways to alleviate traffic through other methods than "adding more roads". Providing bicycling lanes so people can commute, having more residential closer to commercial / business uses so people don't have to travel as far to and from work, providing an effective bus system and/or heavy / light rail. While these methods will alleviate traffic for some, because of induced demand the roads will continue to be crowded (as I said early, this a sign of a healthy, lively city) but now people will have options as how to get to and from their destination.

[myspoonistoobig]

Even when traffic jams up on those roads it's really not THAT bad.

[gerrythesnake]

I think they should stay the same