Comments on: North Druid Corridor Plans For All Kinds of Growth

By: Ridgelandistan

Ridgelandistan — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:45:02 +0000

Urban centers are attractive because of their human-scaled proximity. This proximty is created by keeping autocentric land uses minimized. You cannot enhance small scale proximity and support automobiles/ That’s called a shopping mall and there are lot’s of dead ones around.
Road dieting doesn’t have to be a restriction on cars but merely a reallocation based on realistic projections of the next 20 years.
With the long term economic repurcusions of world oil production peak last July unfolding we are starting to measure the long term REDUCTION in automobile miles driven on our roads.
We have a precious and short lived opportunity to rescale our infrastructure and create civic places to attract shopping dining and living on a personal (pedestrian) scale.
Frankly, personal automobiles won’t be a part of that future.

By: Bo

Bo — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:59:59 +0000

Scott – said much better than I could. I actually thought about Paris or Manhattan as examples of this but didn’t want to stretch so far as to use them in a discussion of Toco Hills But I totally agree that efficient roads and pedestrian friendliness needn’t be mutually exclusive thanks to good design. The two concepts that may be mutually exclusive are Atlanta and Good Design.

By: Decatur Metro

Decatur Metro — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:44:09 +0000

Point taken…I guess my reading of “efficiency” as “faster speeds” was my main mistake. Hopefully they can accommodate all parties (to a point) and show us how it’s done.

I’m just curious to know whether anyone is even considering bringing up the words “road diet” in this conversation. Perhaps N. Druid isn’t the place to do that…but where is?

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:02:17 +0000

Doesn’t thinking two things aren’t compatible (traffic efficiency and ped-friendliness) suggest that we may have to choose one or the other? That’s what I was reading as an ‘either/or’.

I wasn’t referring to how many cars Parisians have or how much they drive. I was talking about the traffic efficiency of their boulevards, which process a tremendous amount of through traffic daily — comparable or in excess of our gnarliest arterials — yet provide a very desirable, ped-friendly environment.

Alls I’m sayin’ is that if it’s possible with the right design — and other cities show it is — skepticism about meeting the needs of both peds and cars before any real design work has been done may be premature. What can I say? I’m an optimist.

By: Decatur Metro

Decatur Metro — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:25:01 +0000

When did I say it was an either/or?

Parisians have 1 or no cars. We all have two. If we don’t small strides to make driving less convenient then how will we ever move towards denser urban space? (Note I didn’t say “make a 180″, etc) Is this one of those underground tunnel situations?

But if “increased mobility” is actually ped-friendly, then I did read that portion of the application incorrectly. So, I guess we can all still hope to have our cake and eat it too.

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:34:41 +0000

You’re right, Bo. I think there might be a misreading of the application here. Reducing curb cuts, distracting signage, adjusting signalization, and increasing movement options are all pedestrian-focused design criteria, not auto-focused (though, done right, they can be of benefit to both).

At the same time, there’s no denying that that stretch is a primary transportation corridor. The problem is assuming that, because it’s such a miserable corridor livability wise, the only solution is to flip 180 degrees and retrofit for peds instead. But that ignores reality.

This is a design challenge, not an either/or. Parisian boulevards process darn near I-85 levels of corridor traffic *through design*, yet people pay top dollar to live along them or sit on their sidewalks drinking coffee. It is possible to create a primary corridor that serves all modes of travel, from foot to car. I hope they get the grant (if they haven’t already) and pull this off.

By: AMB

AMB — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:31:52 +0000

One thing that Edgewood and Toco Hill have is traffic. Lots and lots of traffic. That is because both centers have an excellent mix of shops that attract lots of shoppers.

And maybe you want to walk around Edgewood but I go to buy bags of mulch and soil conditioner and dog food and kitty litter. Hard to juggle those with your latte while strolling a walkable landscape.

The reason for redeveloping North Druid Hills is the same reason that the Stone Mountain Freeway Extension (aka Presidential Parkway) was almost rammed down our throats-developers see a large swath of very desirable land in private hands and need some reason to move out those people and build, build, build.

By: Bo

Bo — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:01:36 +0000

Not for nothing, but there are plenty of examples of places that serve pedestrians and cars alike – it doesn’t always have to be an either/or, and I think it’s unrealistic to plan for dense urban centers that only serve pedestrians. I can understand the fear when we’re talking about Edgewood as our best example, but dear God, DuPont Circle anyone?