How Atlanta is gradually becoming a bona fide bike-friendly city (Lenox: gated, design)

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

I mean, the counter was installed in 2017, and the protected bike section was cut out mid 2017. I wouldn't be surprised if maybe putting a hole in the infrastructure had something of an effect on usage.

By THAT much? I doubt it. If the 10th Street track gets an average ridership of just over 500 per day (and it's likely one of the busiest corridors in the city, connecting from the Beltline towards Midtown), and the downtown tracks are getting barely over 100, I doubt Westview got much ridership at all.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Thanks of this. Neat read.

But I can't help but notice that Westview, which we've had lengthy discussions about, has a daily ridership average of 6. While I'm not in any way supporting the removal of the track over there, you can see why people involved didn't see it as necessary.

Not people, but 1 single church that has political influence over the City Councilmember.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

By THAT much? I doubt it. If the 10th Street track gets an average ridership of just over 500 per day (and it's likely one of the busiest corridors in the city, connecting from the Beltline towards Midtown), and the downtown tracks are getting barely over 100, I doubt Westview got much ridership at all.

There are 27 parking spots that replaced the bike lanes in that section. Assuming that there is an average of two people per car, and that, given the large parking lots already in place, they're only used on Sunday, that's an average of ~8 people per day who use those spots, rounding up.

A loss of 2 bikers per day is not a lot before the bike lanes would have the same average use as the spots. The only difference being that the bike lanes are public infrastructure for public mobility through a public right of way, and would connect to a growing system of bike infrastructure in a city turning around and focusing on sustainable growth.

The parking spots, on the other hand, are rather specifically for the church, and will perpetuate the same that's gotten us into this traffic mess that we're in today.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Not people, but 1 single church that has political influence over the City Councilmember.

Good old Cleta "Drunkass" Winslow

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Not people, but 1 single church that has political influence over the City Councilmember.

Churches are people , my friend. <-- please note: sarcasm, not serious, joking, having a laugh...

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

There are 27 parking spots that replaced the bike lanes in that section. Assuming that there is an average of two people per car, and that, given the large parking lots already in place, they're only used on Sunday, that's an average of ~8 people per day who use those spots, rounding up.

A loss of 2 bikers per day is not a lot before the bike lanes would have the same average use as the spots. The only difference being that the bike lanes are public infrastructure for public mobility through a public right of way, and would connect to a growing system of bike infrastructure in a city turning around and focusing on sustainable growth.

The parking spots, on the other hand, are rather specifically for the church, and will perpetuate the same that's gotten us into this traffic mess that we're in today.

Please note that I said that I didn't support the removal of the track. In previous threads, I pointed out numerous locations that the church could have put extra parking. But I can see why those involved found the track to be of little use.

Honestly, I have to wonder why this section got a barrier-separated lane in the first place. Seems like a very odd location, and the extremely-low usage seems to support that. Total honesty: waste of money that could have been used elsewhere.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Churches are people , my friend. <-- please note: sarcasm, not serious, joking, having a laugh...



Please note that I said that I didn't support the removal of the track. In previous threads, I pointed out numerous locations that the church could have put extra parking. But I can see why those involved found the track to be of little use.

Honestly, I have to wonder why this section got a barrier-separated lane in the first place. Seems like a very odd location, and the extremely-low usage seems to support that. Total honesty: waste of money that could have been used elsewhere.

Equity. Can't add high quality bike infrastructure to only the white areas of town.

[Atlanta Scientist]

I love the progress the city and area is making.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Equity. Can't add high quality bike infrastructure to only the white areas of town.

Really, dude? You're pulling the race card on this? Put bike lanes somewhere where they will see usage or where demand is. Simply putting them somewhere for no particular reason is wasting money. Although, this was only a 1/2 mile track originally, so the cost was pretty negligible.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Really, dude? You're pulling the race card on this? Put bike lanes somewhere where they will see usage or where demand is. Simply putting them somewhere for no particular reason is wasting money. Although, this was only a 1/2 mile track originally, so the cost was pretty negligible.

This also connects to the Westside Trail and the existing West End Trail.

[cqholt]

No more phantom bike lanes that last for a few blocks

Becky Katz, Atlanta’s chief bicycle officer, said the city needs to pay more attention to where bike lanes actually go.

“Nobody builds a road that’s unconnected to another road, right?” Katz said. “So we really need to be looking at our network and that’s kind of the next place.”

https://www.wabe.org/atlanta-officia...ty-bike-lanes/