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.
This kind of sounds like fourthwarden's "if a small island of congestion pricing didn't largely affect an area, then obviously doing the same thing over a 250 square mile area would be the same!"
My toll / congestion charge idea is not on topic for this thread, but since I was called out explicitly, and in a way that, once again, drastically misrepresents my position, I'll reply to it.
The point was never that there would be no effect, but that the long-term positive effects would drastically outweigh the short-term negatives, which is jsvh's point here.
There comes a point where we must understand the inherit disadvantages of cars attempting to handle large volumes of people. There comes a point where we must admit that we can not handle the demand for mobility with as inefficient a mode as cars.
In a situation with limited resources (funding) and limited space, then, we must be able to critically allocate both to the options which objectively provide higher throughput rather than maintaining a mode that is, as we speak, failing to handle the needs of the area.
Dedicating road space to transit opens that space up for objectively higher-capacity methods of moving people. There will still be road space for cars, so those who 100% can not use the new alternatives will be still be able to drive, even if it is less convenient. At least now, those who can take advantage of the more space-efficient service can do so, including those who couldn't access the area before.
Yes, there are examples of universities roads that are still open to cars and toads that are closed to cars. But there are no examples of planned closures leading to disaster people are predicting.
I am suggesting Clifton be closed to thru traffic and get transit in it's own RoW out of traffic for the entire route. If you are coming to Emory / CDC from the south you will need to park on that side of campus and either walk or take transit to the exact location you need to get to.
There comes a point where we must understand the inherit disadvantages of cars attempting to handle large volumes of people. There comes a point where we must admit that we can not handle the demand for mobility with as inefficient a mode as cars.
In a situation with limited resources (funding) and limited space, then, we must be able to critically allocate both to the options which objectively provide higher throughput rather than maintaining a mode that is, as we speak, failing to handle the needs of the area.
Dedicating road space to transit opens that space up for objectively higher-capacity methods of moving people. There will still be road space for cars, so those who 100% can not use the new alternatives will be still be able to drive, even if it is less convenient. At least now, those who can take advantage of the more space-efficient service can do so, including those who couldn't access the area before.
Yes, there are examples of universities roads that are still open to cars and toads that are closed to cars. But there are no examples of planned closures leading to disaster people are predicting.
I am suggesting Clifton be closed to thru traffic and get transit in it's own RoW out of traffic for the entire route. If you are coming to Emory / CDC from the south you will need to park on that side of campus and either walk or take transit to the exact location you need to get to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh
Nailed it.
To be fair to Samiwas1 (side note, I always read your name as Samwasi for some reason...), I'm not sure I support your actual position jsvh.
I agree that we need to be ready to dedicate existing road space to transit, but not necessarily that we should stop Clifton from being a through street.
We gave examples of why the other examples didn't end up like that and this one might. You just refuse to acknowledge it.
Auburn closed their small cross roads through campus, but they did not close the main roads around campus. If they closed College or Magnolia, it absolutely would be an apocalypse. Those are both busy roads and very busy student crossings.
So, are you suggesting closing Clifton completely, or just running transit down the middle of it? If you are suggesting closing Clifton completely, what are your alternatives for getting vehicular traffic to the CDC campus from the south?
So, that's proof that we can close any freeway, anywhere in the world, at any point of time, for whatever length of time, and all will just work out. Right?
So "just don't go anywhere this weekend" is now equivalent to "just don't go anywhere ever and it'll all be fine"?
And, FYI, it was closed only from Friday night through Sunday morning . How do you think it would have fared on a regular Monday morning?
You can interrupt that anyway you want. I presented an example of the busiest freeway in the nation was shut down COMPLETELY for a weekend. Massive gridlock and chaos was predicted, but that never materialized and in fact air pollution improved during the closure. https://www.accessmagazine.org/sprin...eeway-closure/
PS. I never said I supported the idea of closing Clifton Rd. It will never happen, but that corridor needs high quality, dedicated ROW transit.
To be fair to Samiwas1 (side note, I always read your name as Samwasi for some reason...), I'm not sure I support your actual position jsvh.
I agree that we need to be ready to dedicate existing road space to transit, but not necessarily that we should stop Clifton from being a through street.
It would depend on exactly how the engineering plans work out. We shouldn't close Clifton to thru traffic just to be mean, but transit, bikes, peds in their own RoW free of traffic should be the priority. I have trouble seeing that leaving enough room for fast flowing traffic but would welcome a proposal that still leaves as much connectivity as possible.
My toll / congestion charge idea is not on topic for this thread, but since I was called out explicitly, and in a way that, once again, drastically misrepresents my position, I'll reply to it.
The point was never that there would be no effect, but that the long-term positive effects would drastically outweigh the short-term negatives, which is jsvh's point here.
Your point was that the tiny islands in London and Stockholm did not generate negative economic issues, and the Atlanta version wouldn't either. If that was not your point, then you entirely misrepresented it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by fouthwarden
Well, London isn't Singapore which isn't Stockholm which isn't London, yet they all have effective pricing systems. The laws of economics don't magically change just because you crossed an ocean.
There is no evidence that London's congestion charge adversely effected business, with declines happening before the pricing took effect, and with other events, such as the terrorist bombings of July 2005 or the closing of the Central Line after the Chancery Lane derailment directly hurting retail more.
In Stockholm, there was no measurable effect on retail business.
Just pointing out the repeated "this one thing worked there on one scale, so it will work here on another scale" is not an effective argument.
Quote:
There comes a point where we must understand the inherit disadvantages of cars attempting to handle large volumes of people. There comes a point where we must admit that we can not handle the demand for mobility with as inefficient a mode as cars.
Sure. Few argue that. But there are logical ways to implement changes, and there are illogical. Completely blocking off vehicular access to a large employment center and replacing it with a light rail link from...somewhere...is not logical. The two methods should coexist. All I'm asking is what the actual intent is.
Quote:
In a situation with limited resources (funding) and limited space, then, we must be able to critically allocate both to the options which objectively provide higher throughput rather than maintaining a mode that is, as we speak, failing to handle the needs of the area.
I don't think we need to put any money into more roads around the Emory area (the existing ones do need to be maintained), but I don't think closing off the road completely is an option.
Quote:
Dedicating road space to transit opens that space up for objectively higher-capacity methods of moving people. There will still be road space for cars, so those who 100% can not use the new alternatives will be still be able to drive, even if it is less convenient. At least now, those who can take advantage of the more space-efficient service can do so, including those who couldn't access the area before.
And that's what I have been saying. Clifton is wide enough that you might be able to stuff some light rail down the middle, and that's a decent idea.
But, this "objectively higher-capacity method" thing needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It only becomes a positive change if it is used, or if access is actually increased made easier/faster. If you remove access to 2,500 cars daily (sending the remainder around some circuitous route), and only 600 people use the alternative, then no positive change has been made in terms of access. Example: The Streetcar. I guarantee you that the amount of vehicles displaced was not replaced by streetcar riders. It's an "objectively higher capacity"method, but it has likely not increased the actual throughput of those roads.
Yes, there are examples of universities roads that are still open to cars and toads that are closed to cars. But there are no examples of planned closures leading to disaster people are predicting.
Nope. Because, yet again, we've pointed out the differences. You just prove again and again, you are unwilling to accept or acknowledge the differences and why they matter. Do you accept this as true?
Quote:
I am suggesting Clifton be closed to thru traffic and get transit in it's own RoW out of traffic for the entire route. If you are coming to Emory / CDC from the south you will need to park on that side of campus and either walk or take transit to the exact location you need to get to.
Well, closing Clifton for its entire route also closes off access form the north for the CDC and Emory. So, essentially, you are suggesting that the CDC be accessible only by transit, or through a neighborhood. You are suggesting that those who won't or can't use the transit, for whatever reason, must park 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile from their office building and walk the rest of the way? And you don't actually see this as a completely ludicrous proposition?
This is why your positions aren't accepted by most. They are so far off the rails (huh huh huh) as to be shelved before even making it to committee. This is not common sense planning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt
You can interrupt that anyway you want. I presented an example of the busiest freeway in the nation was shut down COMPLETELY for a weekend. Massive gridlock and chaos was predicted, but that never materialized and in fact air pollution improved during the closure.
The entirety of the 405 was not shut down. A section between West Los Angeles and Sherman Oaks was closed. It was closed down for around 40 hours, on a Saturday (not a weekday), with most hours being overnight. If you look at Google Maps typical traffic map for Saturdays, that section of 405 only gets as bad as orange for maybe two hours on a typical Saturday afternoon. The rest of the time, it is green. There was a massive campaign to tell people to not go out that day, and it worked. Just because chaos was predicted and it didn't happen due to people following common-sense suggestions, is not proof of much of anything.
Quote:
PS. I never said I supported the idea of closing Clifton Rd. It will never happen, but that corridor needs high quality, dedicated ROW transit.
I don't believe I said you did, but I fully agree that corridor needs transit. But it needs to make sense. What jsvh is suggesting does not make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden
To be fair to Samiwas1 (side note, I always read your name as Samwasi for some reason...), I'm not sure I support your actual position jsvh.
I agree that we need to be ready to dedicate existing road space to transit, but not necessarily that we should stop Clifton from being a through street.
Certainly. For most of the length of Clifton through Emory the width of the road itself appears to be about 60'. Add in the existing sidewalks and you get about 85'. And most of the length has more open land along the run. But, just using the road itself, you could have two 9.5' Light rail lines, two 10' traffic lanes, and two 5' bike lanes. This leaves 11' of space which could be used for turn lanes at intersections, and stations between.
This brings vehicle lanes, rail, bikes, and sidewalks all into the existing framework, without completely cutting off access for the most-used method of getting around, and not requiring expensive new access methods to be excavated and constructed.
My toll / congestion charge idea is not on topic for this thread, but since I was called out explicitly, and in a way that, once again, drastically misrepresents my position, I'll reply to it.
The point was never that there would be no effect, but that the long-term positive effects would drastically outweigh the short-term negatives, which is jsvh's point here.
There comes a point where we must understand the inherit disadvantages of cars attempting to handle large volumes of people. There comes a point where we must admit that we can not handle the demand for mobility with as inefficient a mode as cars.
In a situation with limited resources (funding) and limited space, then, we must be able to critically allocate both to the options which objectively provide higher throughput rather than maintaining a mode that is, as we speak, failing to handle the needs of the area.
Dedicating road space to transit opens that space up for objectively higher-capacity methods of moving people. There will still be road space for cars, so those who 100% can not use the new alternatives will be still be able to drive, even if it is less convenient. At least now, those who can take advantage of the more space-efficient service can do so, including those who couldn't access the area before.
Rough percentages:
4% in Atlanta metro choose to use transit.
85% drive alone.
7% telecommute.
4% car or van pool
(a handful walk or ride bikes)
So you will make things much more difficult and expensive for 89% and easier for 4%. That is not a rational policy at all.
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.
