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.
None of these refers to a sidewalk as a recovery zone for vehicles. In fact, they recommend a buffer zone between the road and sidewalks of 6' if possible. Most of the text is referring to highways. The first two links specifically talk about shoulders as recovery zones, and that as far as utility poles and other hard objects are concerned, a bike lane can be considered as recovery zone.
Quote:
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.
I'm not going to go and try to drive as fast as I can. I'm going to go and drive like I would normally drive, and see what it's like. Only because I happen to be right down the street dropping the kid off at camp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh
Yep. It needs to be designed as a Street or a Road (or interstate). "Stroads" don't work.
Well, that will never happen, and is ridiculous. BTW...Glenwood through your area looks exactly like a street...two lanes, big sidewalks, bike lanes, and buildings right on the street. But to think that every road/street in 250 square miles of ITP is going to be a low-speed street...that's just laughable.
Quote:
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.
Few roads are more than half a mile. It may not be the same as cul-de-sac roads, which, incidentally, don't have any of the through traffic you are so scared of, but it's not exactly truly connected.
Quote:
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.
And for the majority of human history, we had no electricity, no plumbing, no internet, no television, no radio, no phones, no air conditioning, no heat, no planes, and no trains. I assume you will be giving up all of those as well?
I didn't say that having walkable areas was harebrained. I said that designing an entire several-hundred-mile urban area completely centered around walking, with no roads supporting over 20 MPH, is harebrained. There's a reason that does not exist anywhere.
Quote:
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.
You cannot move everyone around by walking and bike either. It's great for small areas, not for large cities. Almost no city is completely prioritized for bike and walking. They are complementary. Even one of the most bike-friendly cities in the world, Copenhagen, has numerous large car-centered roads right through the middle of town. And before you pull up your list of car-free areas, we've already discussed that.
None of these refers to a sidewalk as a recovery zone for vehicles. In fact, they recommend a buffer zone between the road and sidewalks of 6' if possible. Most of the text is referring to highways. The first two links specifically talk about shoulders as recovery zones, and that as far as utility poles and other hard objects are concerned, a bike lane can be considered as recovery zone.
You did read the part about a curb not counting as a the end of the recovery zone and wanting trees and utility poles placed behind sidewalks, right? Sorry, you may want to deny it since they don't spell it out for you but our roads engineers are that cold, sidewalks are considered recovery zones for vehicles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
Well, that will never happen, and is ridiculous. BTW...Glenwood through your area looks exactly like a street...two lanes, big sidewalks, bike lanes, and buildings right on the street. But to think that every road/street in 250 square miles of ITP is going to be a low-speed street...that's just laughable.
No, it won't happen to every to every road / street tomorrow. But it will happen to a lot of them in the coming years.
And you are welcome to try to get your neighbors to design the street you live on to support cars going 45mph, but that is not what most people want for their neighborhood streets. Good neighborhood streets should not even need paint let alone bike lanes.
Do you really not want / expect / think that the tide of things will shift more and more towards walkability both here in Atlanta and every other successful city?
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
And for the majority of human history, we had no electricity, no plumbing, no internet, no television, no radio, no phones, no air conditioning, no heat, no planes, and no trains. I assume you will be giving up all of those as well?
Obviously. If we find one thing from a hundred years ago worked well, that must mean we must give up all inventions since that time. We cannot choose the best of both ways. (note: sarcasm)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
I didn't say that having walkable areas was harebrained. I said that designing an entire several-hundred-mile urban area completely centered around walking, with no roads supporting over 20 MPH, is harebrained. There's a reason that does not exist anywhere.
You cannot move everyone around by walking and bike either. It's great for small areas, not for large cities. Almost no city is completely prioritized for bike and walking. They are complementary. Even one of the most bike-friendly cities in the world, Copenhagen, has numerous large car-centered roads right through the middle of town. And before you pull up your list of car-free areas, we've already discussed that.
Sure you can. How do you think people got around in cities up until a couple hundred years ago? Walking. (I guess some horses and then boats in places like Venice), but 90%+ of all trips were done solely on foot.
Walking is still a part of basically every trip today. Even if it is the trip from your couch to your refrigerator or down the block to catch the train to work.
You may hate it, but walking takes priority over cars on city streets. Cars simply don't cut it.
That doesn't mean we have to banish all cars, but it does mean we need to keep improving the design of streets where pedestrian safety & walkability comes before the speed of cars. High-speed cars should be confined to their own facilities.
You did read the part about a curb not counting as a the end of the recovery zone and wanting trees and utility poles placed behind sidewalks, right? Sorry, you may want to deny it since they don't spell it out for you but our roads engineers are that cold, sidewalks are considered recovery zones for vehicles.
Whatever you want to believe is fine with me.
Quote:
And you are welcome to try to get your neighbors to design the street you live on to support cars going 45mph, but that is not what most people want for their neighborhood streets. Good neighborhood streets should not even need paint let alone bike lanes.
Glenwood is not a neighborhood street. Your house is on a neighborhood street.
Quote:
Do you really not want / expect / think that the tide of things will shift more and more towards walkability both here in Atlanta and every other successful city?
Yes. But that does not mean the entire city has to be slow, basically non-drivable roads where it takes 90 minutes to go ten miles. An efficient road network has a series of streets and roads of differing styles, and just "street" and "road" doesn't cut it, especially in an already built-out city.
Quote:
Obviously. If we find one thing from a hundred years ago worked well, that must mean we must give up all inventions since that time. We cannot choose the best of both ways. (note: sarcasm)
You're kidding right? I've been arguing towards the best of both ways. You've been arguing towards making nearly every road in the city a pedestrian utopia, with cars having to give way.
Quote:
Sure you can. How do you think people got around in cities up until a couple hundred years ago? Walking. (I guess some horses and then boats in places like Venice), but 90%+ of all trips were done solely on foot.
Most cities were not that large, and most of those people were not going more than a mile or two at most. It's not 200 years ago any more. I'm starting to wonder if you realize that or not.
Quote:
You may hate it, but walking takes priority over cars on city streets. Cars simply don't cut it.
Yes...that's why the majority of people walk everywhere. Oh, wait...
Quote:
That doesn't mean we have to banish all cars, but it does mean we need to keep improving the design of streets where pedestrian safety & walkability comes before the speed of cars. High-speed cars should be confined to their own facilities.
Unfortunately, this is just not not feasible for every street in the city. If we were starting over, or we could take right of way from landowners, it would be more feasible. But, even as your own link in the following post states...some streets and roads are just going to be for commuting traffic, and not geared towards walkability.
It’s unrealistic to expect every street to be highly walkable and charming. We need some areas to be industrial. Some streets are tasked with doing the dirty work of the city. That’s OK, but be intentional about it.
That is exactly what I have said all along. 100%. You told me I was wrong, then posted a link that repeated exactly what I said.
He then goes on to show examples of different types of roads. His example of a downtown road is a 4-lane with center turn lane and non-protected bike lane. This is much larger and likely faster than the road that runs through "downtown" Glenwood Park and North Ormewood. So, is he wrong?
Honestly even with charming streets in the metro I don't think it would improve walk-ability by a significant enough margin to justify the costs... for example... Gwinnett County has since the beginning of this century enacted an ordinance that mandates all new home developments MUST factor in the cost of sidewalks, and include them in their development, which is one of the big reasons you see so many sidewalks in Gwinnett versus the rest of the metro (this was a shocker as to how few sidewalks the metro really had when we came from Chicago.) yet 95% of these sidewalks are pretty much empty. The problem isn't really that the coridoors are uninviting, (which some of them are quite intimidating near large roads with high speed limits) but MORE SO that people cannot use them to efficiently and easily get to their destinations outside of Downtown and Buckhead because development is so sprawled in such large distances it would take too long to walk and especially to walk to transit (which is another reason Park and Ride will likely be favored versus Bussing to any form of rail transit.)
Segregated Biking paths would probably go further but I still think the majority would still prefer their automobile.
He then goes on to show examples of different types of roads. His example of a downtown road is a 4-lane with center turn lane and non-protected bike lane. This is much larger and likely faster than the road that runs through "downtown" Glenwood Park and North Ormewood. So, is he wrong?
Is that really your take away? You seriously think there is any real likelihood of a street in Glenwood Park / North Ormewood getting widened? No, he is not wrong. You are wrong. North Ormewood Park is not "downtown". Streets like Marietta, Piedmont and Northside in downtown are worth having valid discussions about them being 3-5 lanes (3-5 lanes on those streets still will be a discussion about road diets in many cases).
I am done with the line-by-line petty arguing. You don't even believe in half the things you are arguing about. You just feel a need to argue with every single thing I say for some weird reason. It is old.
Honestly even with charming streets in the metro I don't think it would improve walk-ability by a significant enough margin to justify the costs... for example... Gwinnett County has since the beginning of this century enacted an ordinance that mandates all new home developments MUST factor in the cost of sidewalks, and include them in their development, which is one of the big reasons you see so many sidewalks in Gwinnett versus the rest of the metro (this was a shocker as to how few sidewalks the metro really had when we came from Chicago.) yet 95% of these sidewalks are pretty much empty. The problem isn't really that the coridoors are uninviting, (which some of them are quite intimidating near large roads with high speed limits) but MORE SO that people cannot use them to efficiently and easily get to their destinations outside of Downtown and Buckhead because development is so sprawled in such large distances it would take too long to walk and especially to walk to transit (which is another reason Park and Ride will likely be favored versus Bussing to any form of rail transit.)
Segregated Biking paths would probably go further but I still think the majority would still prefer their automobile.
The thing is walkability is cheaper. All you need to do is drop some barriers to keep traffic out of the way.
Heck there are 2,000 year old Roman roads that have never had a dollar spent on having them "repaved" and winding paths in thousand year old villages with poor / weak central governments that have great walkability.
I guess that is a bigger message I am trying to get across: Good neighborhood walkability is not spending big bucks having segregated bike paths / walking trails or even pristine sidewalks in front of every home.
It is where kids can safely play games and run out in the middle of the street.
That often means less paint, less signs, less infrastructure costs.
Now, should we still get our act together and have the city start maintaining a proper network of sidewalks instead of forcing it on property owners? Absolutely. But it also means repurposing car-lanes for other uses which results in less money needing to repave them.
I am all for people still having the option of cars. But that comes with sacrifices too. And right now the demand is much stronger for more walkable, connected places.
I'm not comparing my house to a combination of multiple properties. We're talking the houses. Your house in Ormewood or Glenwood or whatever doesn't have a five-figure tax bill. Would have to be a $750k house.
......what? Where did I say people cut through the area? I said the opposite. Why would anyone cut through an area that doesn't have any through connections, except on the main roads like Glenwood or Flat Shoals? Makes no sense.
Do you disagree that most neighborhood roads are used by residents of the area?
There is nothing remotely walker- or biker-friendly about North Ormewood. No sidewalks and narrow roads, with little room for sidewalks without people giving up half of their yards.
Exactly. Five figures. Ha. cq's is probably bigger than either of ours. His taxes, too.
I happen to live in Atlanta-in-DeKalb, won my appeal and had my appraisal frozen 2 years ago.
It is where kids can safely play games and run out in the middle of the street.
That is what neighborhood roads are for. A road like Glenwood, or Memorial, or Moreland has no business being a road that kids can play in.
Quote:
That often means less paint, less signs, less infrastructure costs.
And less movement. Can you find me one city in the world which has no main roads? Just roads that kids can safely play in?
Quote:
I am all for people still having the option of cars. But that comes with sacrifices too. And right now the demand is much stronger for more walkable, connected places.
Yes, demand is quite strong for walkable areas. Are you stretching that to believe that demand is strong to get rid of arterial and collector roads throughout the inner metro?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh
Is that really your take away? You seriously think there is any real likelihood of a street in Glenwood Park / North Ormewood getting widened? No, he is not wrong. You are wrong.
Damn, dude. I didn't even suggest that. You really need to pay attention. I simply stated that a road like Glenwood is a collector, mostly meant to move vehicular traffic from neighborhoods to larger arterial roads, with decent considerations for other uses. It is not a back neighborhood street. And Glenwood runs through the little "downtown"-style area at Kennedy. His image brings to mind small-town downtowns, not huge metro downtowns. Glenwood is two lanes with nice sidewalks and bike lanes, but it's not, and never will be, considered a place for children to play games in the street.
It is not viable in a huge metro for every road to have that status. Could you imagine trying to drive even five miles on a road like this with dozens of others doing the same? It would be terrible, and inefficient as hell. That's why we have a series of road types: Neighborhood/local roads feed to collector roads which feed to arterial roads which feed to highways.
Quote:
I am done with the line-by-line petty arguing. You don't even believe in half the things you are arguing about. You just feel a need to argue with every single thing I say for some weird reason. It is old.
Sorry that you feel that way, but as long as you keep putting out inaccurate claims, I will keep challenging them. I believe everything I say, and usually research facts and information before I post a rebuttal. You said gas taxes pay for less than half of roads they're intended for. I provided a link showing almost 90% in Georgia. You didn't respond. You said people would never accept paying more gas tax for their roads. I provided sources showing more than 60% increase in state gas tax in the past three years. You didn't respond. You said that a MARTA ticket covers 30% or more of costs. I posted sources from MARTA showing that passenger fares cover less than 15% of operating costs, and 0% of capital costs. You didn't respond.
If someone provides actual sources to prove me wrong in anything, I generally accept and respond. cqholt and others have done this a time or two. But, if you continue to argue factual inaccuracies after having been given proof of their inaccuracy...yeah, I will call you out on it. What is old is the continuance to do so...the absolute refusal of facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt
I happen to live in Atlanta-in-DeKalb, won my appeal and had my appraisal frozen 2 years ago.
Man, you didn't even acknowledge the little side joke I left for you there!
I am beginning to think we need to block off more areas for pedestrians. More and more of them are aimlessly wandering around anyway. And of course 2/3 of them are yakking on their cell phones and paying no attention whatsoever. So we might as well take steps to keep them safe.
It's terrible in many mall parking lots -- you've got people rambling all over the place like they are picking daisies in a country meadow. Apparently they don't realize (or care) that a person my age backing out of a parking space may not have a 360 degree field of vision.
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.
