NIMBY Brookhaven strikes again (this time against MARTA mixed-use) (Atlanta: apartment complexes, townhomes)

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Correct me if I am worng, but isn't Lenox Station in Buckhead?

Read my entire post next time.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Read my entire post next time.

You did specify the area or station. Maybe you should be more specific next time?

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by cqholt

You did specify the area or station. Maybe you should be more specific next time?

Both. Again, go back and read my ENTIRE post, starting about midway through. I very specifically address trips from Brookhaven to Buckhead, both the southern end near the Lenox Station and the northern end near the Buckhead Station.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Both. Again, go back and read my ENTIRE post, starting about midway through. I very specifically address trips from Brookhaven to Buckhead, both the southern end near the Lenox Station and the northern end near the Buckhead Station.

I see in your time estimation of driving you did not include the time to open the door, put on the seat belt, find the key hole and turn it. Every second counts.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

I'm no expert on this, but I do believe that FL's and AL's complaint isn't just about how much we pull from the lake, but how much or little water reaches FL and AL as a result of our use of the Hooch. So, I would imagine a ruling adverse to Georgia would cover all use along the river - lake and otherwise.

The lawsuit specifically covers the water drawn from Lake Lanier and whether the Army Corps of Engineers had the legal right to allow Georgia to draw the amounts it currently uses for drinking water. Those other water rights are already established.

Now there could be a political fight within Georgia to rob Peter to pay Paul and Alabama and Florida could care less where the flow comes from, but that would be separate from the lawsuit.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by jsvh

It will attract more transportation options and make it possible for existing trips shorter. You don't have to go to 0% car trips to improve your quality of life. People in that dense mixed use development right around the station will have a lot of options they will be able to walk to near by. The more options that are right at that node, the lower the % of car trips will go.



If by "infrastructure" you mean roads then that is exactly what metro Atlanta has been trying for the last 60 years. It hasn't worked, it has made things worse. Not to mention, transit and density depend on each other, if you artificially hold back density, you harm transit.







http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf
https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-t...nduced-demand/



So you are arguing about a piece of the data you say is irrelevant to Decatur anyways? I have no time for that. Come back with some data to support you case. Not just citing your own unsupported personal thoughts on the sources I provide.

You're missing the point. Your data doesn't mean what you think. You are drawing a conclusion without considering the impact on the surrounding area. You will constantly point out induced demand, but you are ignoring that these projects simply shift traffic to other corridors, which is the same concept.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by cqholt

I see in your time estimation of driving you did not include the time to open the door, put on the seat belt, find the key hole and turn it. Every second counts.

In other words, you have no counter.

Its basic common sense. People do use it when selecting their alternatives. If transit takes 3 times longer, only the transit dependent will use it. And if you have walking, time, transfer time and waiting time, a 10 minute drive could turn into a much longer transit trip.

Now if you have remote/distant/slow parking like at Emory University/CDC, you have the reverse situation where driving has a lot of extra time involved.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by bu2

You're missing the point. Your data doesn't mean what you think. You are drawing a conclusion without considering the impact on the surrounding area. You will constantly point out induced demand, but you are ignoring that these projects simply shift traffic to other corridors, which is the same concept.

Sure they shift traffic to other corridors. But it doesn't only shift people to other corridors. It is still an overall reduction in traffic as some people will get fed up enough with the longer trip time to move or find non-driving options. Most of these large congested roadways such as Peachtree and Buford Highway have an even larger 16-lane superhighway just another mile over running parallel. That should make it clear that we are never going to widen our way out of traffic. Whatever road capacity you build it will fill up, so size the roads for the amount of traffic you want in the area. The other way around, trying to size the roads to fit demand, is a battle you will never win.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Sure they shift traffic to other corridors. But it doesn't only shift people to other corridors. It is still an overall reduction in traffic as some people will get fed up enough with the longer trip time to move or find non-driving options. Most of these large congested roadways such as Peachtree and Buford Highway have an even larger 16-lane superhighway just another mile over running parallel. That should make it clear that we are never going to widen our way out of traffic. Whatever road capacity you build it will fill up, so size the roads for the amount of traffic you want in the area. The other way around, trying to size the roads to fit demand, is a battle you will never win.

We will not see another road widening ITP.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by bu2

You're clearly quite knowledgeable on this. But if we suddenly have to dramatically cut back drawing water from Lake Lanier, how does that limit the areas that don't pull from Lake Lanier like Gwinnett does?

Yea I had too much time on my hands years back after I graduated from graduate school and this litigation was ramping up.


Well first and foremost, we are not in the position any more.

There was a Circuit Court judge in Minnesota that tried to make that decision. Ultimately, that decision was thrown out and unfair to Georgia. The issue is whatever the reservoir was constructed for, that reservoir is consuming the maximum extent of excess water we can store in the extreme northern end of the Chattahoochee basin and that water is our water to fairly have access to. It was also pretty well known at the time that we were using it for municipal water purposes and the corps of engineers has behaved that was since it was built.

Now under those cuts, our region, as a whole... and as a state would have to cut back to the withdraw levels decades ago. This would also include irrigation water in the southwest Georgia. It is about the aggregate flow Georgia takes from the river. They merely wanted to target Atlanta trying to pick up on some anti-Atlanta/Anti-urban political sentiment in all 3 states. To an extent, they wanted to divide and conquer Georgia's population. This is why many Republican, generally pro-rural leaders in Georgia fought the water war aggressively, despite some rural residents talking down Atlanta.

The new lawsuit, which is mostly a way or re-hashing the same thing is an equitable apportionment lawsuit from Florida that wants all of Georgia to go to 1990 levels. Florida will face a pretty hard time with this, especially given their own misguided efforts that have failed to maintain the same harvesting eco-system they claim we put into jeopardy.

Nonetheless, this would affect all withdraws across the state from the ACF basins and we have to come up with a plan to handle it. We might need to build new reservoirs along this basin. They could be a series of small local ones, we might need to build them further south for irrigation water, we might need to build them on the Flint R.

The Flint R. is touchy in that is one of the only large rivers in the state that is untoched by reservoirs and seasonal flow control. Unlike the Chattahoochee, its eco-system is completely natural.

The Chattahoochee is unnatural, because we keep water flowing down it year round. Drought resistent animals and vegetation might adapt in ways that are less drought resistant.

Say some Oysters have genetic adaptations that help them survive low water, higher salinity drought periods. Over time, they die off and might be out competed by Oysters that do not have these adaptations, whether or not we have been able to see and document this or not.

The flint is truly untouched in this way.

What has always been weird for me with these water wars and environmental/ecological issues is the droughts are naturally occurring. The unnatural part is we stop them from affecting the lower portions of the ACF system. If anything we harm populations, rather than help them over time.

At the same time University of Florida reported that poor policy planning and lack enforcement led to the over harvesting of all the commercial seafood in the area, before the drought ever had a chance to affect the area. It is pretty damning to Florida's case, when they are doing more harm to what they claim to need to save.

The other issue is they seem to want to jeopordize the livliehood of millions of people and an economy worth hundreds of billions and rural southwestern Georgia agriculture for a small economy of Oyster fishermen that will run through periodic hard times. It is only a $10-$20 million/year industry. Hell, the cost of litigation alone could create a fund for fishermen in that area during drastic droughts. Economically, it is far easier for them as a business to increase their prices a little to make up for periodic off years and far cheaper than ruining what is in Georgia.

In other words... economically speaking, Florida is not asking for an equitable apportionment, rather an unequitable amount. They are targeting environmental grounds, including populations they have been bad stewards of.

In the mean time, we need to be more efficient, fix leaky pipes, and put more homes on sewers. We need to make it harder for exurban counties to use ACF and ACT water without sewage. This is also one of the problems with Gwinnett, they might need to overcome if draconian measures occur. We should plan for the expense of expanding sewer to many neighborhoods in the region built in the 50s-80s that commonly had septic tanks.

Our net-use decreases with the more water we put back in. We might also have to deter some heavy-use water industries, which Alabama seems to happily allow. I always believe, particularly for Alabama, much of this was a cheap way to deter economic development from Atlanta in what they saw as their benefit. Ironically, I don't think it works that way for them much.

The other issue is we need to build more reservoirs in the Ocmulgee basin (primarily for Rockdale, Clayton, and Henry Counties). Their water is kept constant through inter-basin transfers in Dekalb and Gwinnett. A quick solution to reduce 78MGD (which is about 10% of our consumption in the ACF) is to eliminate the inter-basin transfer, but we have to change both Gwinnett and Dekalb further and get our Southeastern counties prepared to store water better simultaneously.

It all inter-connects and the cause, blame, and/or damage doesn't fall on any one entity. There are things we can do, it is just a matter of how costly things are.