Another item on tonight’s Decatur City Commission agenda.
Updates on the pedestrian and bike improvements for the C-Street area from a “scoping phase report” for the Atlanta Regional Commission. You may recall the city held two work sessions for residents on this project back in September 2011 and January 2012.
According to Asst. City Manager Hugh Saxon’s letter, “Concepts receiving support include shortening walking distances and eliminating traffic conflicts at the 2 intersections, implementing a road diet on Commerce Drive, and providing a 2-way bike track or multi-use trail on Church Street, while reducing it permanently to 2 vehicle lanes with on-street parking.”
Saxon goes onto note that a traffic circle at Church, Forker and Medlock was “discussed” and that future land use options for commercial land north of Commerce on Clairemont and Church were illustrated at the meetings.
Also, conversations with GDOT about a road diet for Commerce Drive are ongoing, according to Saxon.
The preliminary budget for the project is $3,750,000. The note say it will be funded by the city’s bond fund and grants from GDOT and the ARC. (You may recall that this project was previously up for some specific funding allocations if the T-SPLOST passed.)
Rendering courtesy of Decatur City Commission meeting materials. Click the link to see all four rendering options along with a list of pros and cons.
That looks AMAZING.
Hope people use it without shade. Summers are hot here! They need to put more emphasis on the landscape strip and not make it a secondary thought.
whay’s up with all the bike lanes? there aren’t that many bicyclists on this road….let alone those who follow the rules of the road and stop for lights and stop signs…..it’s already driving chaos on that road near the park….who is in charge of these decisions???
I don’t think there are a lot of cyclists on the road b/c it’s not a safe road for cycling right now. I’d much rather cut through Glenwood Estates on the way to town than take the shorter, faster route of Church Street. I don’t even like walking on Church Street, and agree that part of the reason is b/c it’s so hot. Good suggestion, treesrock.
Excellent point about heat. Clairemont is 4-lane but pleasant to walk along because the trees and homes provide shade. Church is like Buford Highway. Now that I think about it, one reason that walking in NYC in the summer is bearable, despite the baking hot concrete footprint, is because the tall buildings provide shade. Since we probably don’t want the tall buildings, walkability would be increased by more shade trees along our speedways. (But not the kind of trees that fall all the time!)
If it leverages the on street parking or otherwise allows room for left turn lanes at intersections (assuming no roundabouts…) then I like it. Love the cycle track. Looking at how much they were able to fit into the right-of-way really illustrates just how crazy wide Church is right now.
I hope this goes rapidly down in flames. Nearly $4 million dollars to reduce the width of an exisitng dtreet fro a few blocks and give bikes not one but two different options on where to ride (dedicated cycle path plus sharrows! )
I can’t believe that they are seriously considering this.
Surely we can get by with a few thousand dollas worth of paint and accomplish much of the same (assuming that we actually need to accomplish what is being proposed.) Its not like there are already not sidewalks on both sides of the street and more than enough pavement within the right of way.
Spending this kind of money on this sort of a project in this economy is obscene.
Why shouldn’t it happen? From my understanding, the money has already been allocated for the project, thanks to GDOT & ARC grants and the city’s bond fund. Right? We have the money, so why sit on it for no reason other than to appear fiscally frugal in a struggling economy? Austerity for austerity sake isn’t the solution to everything, you know.
No, not to APPEAR fiscally frugal. To BE fiscally frugal.
Do you spend every dollar in your pocket just because you have it? I certainly hope not.
I suspect this argument has less to do with whether money should or should not be spent, and more to do with the fact that we clearly have different priorities and visions for the city of Decatur. As a bicycle commuter, I would greatly benefit from this bicycle track/trail (as would many others!), so I think it’s well worth the money. If it needed a smaller price tag, I would even be fine with simple bicycle lanes (not sharrows, which are pretty weak excuses for bicycle infrastructure imo)… but a bicycle track/trail is a safer (and more exciting!) upgrade that I’m totally fine with!
Asking sincerely, what’s the point of dedicated bike lanes on one street that only go a couple hundred yards? I get that for this short section you’ll be safer, and that’s good. But is it $4 million good?
I’d add that street diets, complete streets, etc. are not just infrastructure investments. Properly done, they’re economic development tools as well. The rise in downtown value and development didn’t start happening until ped-friendly changes started happening, which means that the investments paid returns via taxable value. So, in this case, much of the money is coming from grants, but the returns will be coming to us.
Which is just to show that fiscal responsibility is not always black and white / spend or don’t spend.
Absolutely. The project is partially providing bicycle facilities but is more importantly begining to redefine the conext around those big Commerce intersections. Getting the road size down and bumping up the “complete streets” elements will do a lot for economic development opportunities in the area between the square and Commerce/Church/Clairmont.
I love this plan. Complete streets in Decatur. You can’t go wrong.
Having sharrows and a dedicated bike path WILL inflame anti-bike sentiments.
No doubt, but what I can’t figure is why you would need both.
I am very concerned about the cycle track. It seems like it might make it harder for Decatur police to “pull over” cyclists and properly ticket them for the havoc they wreak on Decatur’s otherwise peaceful community. Will the City hire a separate bike track police force? One can only hope. For the children, of course.
Them cycle tracks is gonna be needin’ some speed humps, too.
Great! Dedicated bike lanes that are separated from the road should really encourage more people to ride bikes, myself included. Decatur and Atlanta should plan this type of setup for as many roads as possible that are wide enough to accommodate this.
Agreed! Decatur would be the bicycling oasis of the southeast! 😉
Road Diet? I live near Agnes Scott. When they narrowed Church Street and Ponce they said we should take the bypass Commerce so that our cars didn’t clog up downtown. Now they are narrowing Commerce as well. How do they expect visitors to get into the city and leave us their money if they keep narrowing the only ways to drive here?
Go near the courthouse some morning. Watch one of the schools during drop off or pickup time. Look around at rush hour. Stand by the paid lot on Church Street on a Friday night. People need and want to drive, like it or not.
Everything this city does to the roads makes traffic worse. Some people will applaud the previous statement but we are being short-sighted by limiting basic access.
The worst part of my commute is the part where I try to get through or around Decatur to get to my home in Decatur.
We can make Decatur friendly for visitors and residents, drivers and cyclists, walkers and wheelchairs. Why are trying to exclude anyone?
Since the city has made pedestrian improvements – such as the road diets on Ponce and Church Street – investment, business and development in Downtown Decatur has taken off. People want to be able to walk around from place to place within the downtown corridor in a safe, pedestrian environment. That IS what draws people to Decatur. You simply cannot have wide roads and multiple lanes of high speed traffic and have a safe, pedestrian environment.
Do you want to go back to the days before?
These improvements on Commerce and Church will help spur the same kind of investment and redevelopment of that side of downtown as it has the rest of downtown.
I’m all for it.
By creating an environment that people want to stick around, walk and linger, people will figure out how to get here. People don’t go to places that create a memorable atmosphere simply because they are easy to get to.
I could have the sequence of event wrong but I believe Decatur was prospering long before there was a road diet on Ponce and Church. I see no evidence that these projects increased investment in downtown Decatur. The stretches of road that were put on a diet do not encompass what I would consider downtown and there are few if any places to walk where the actual dieting took place. It may be nice for a few residents on nearby streets but I believe it is misguided to believe that those road diets in any way led to increased development.
I absolutely go to places that are easy to get to. I live in Decatur and therefore spend the majority of my discretionary income in Decatur (eating out). I don’t dream of going to the Highlands or Lexox/Buckhead because I perceive of it as a traffic and parking nightmare.
Maybe some of the in-COD traffic will drop off when more Decaturites cycle within the city limits instead of using their car. I have no data supporting that supposition but others might. Right now, you have to be brave, skilled, and totally psyched to do errands by bike inside COD on roads like Ponce, Scott, Clairemont, McDonough, DeKalb Ave., College Ave. Columbia, etc. Walking is actually more attractive, because of sidewalks (except where #$%@^ didn’t approve them). But walking is often too slow for busy folks.
I’m personally dreaming of the day the current sidewalk on Scott Blvd is replaced with a multi-use bike/walking path! That would be so amazing, and it would make so much sense.
It is a fact that once Decatur started making pedestrian improvements and putting less emphasis on accommodating the personal vehicle, that traffic counts in downtown Decatur have held steady, or have gone down in some instances, despite the incredible amount of development in the past decade. That would seem to indicate that people are walking/cycling more to their destinations instead of making multiple vehicle stops within the downtown area.
+1. The other day it took me nearly 15 minutes to get from house at Glennwood / E Ponce to light at Commerce/W Howard. The traffic at N Candler and College & McDonough and College is also deplorable. Wish Decatur would spend time and money improving traffic flow and safety. Bikes are nice but Decatur does have plenty of citizens that need to drive kids to school and drive themselves to work.
Safe bike lanes won’t just be for die hard commuter cyclists but also families who often stop cycling once the kids are too big to ride on the sidewalks but too young to do well on busy streets with fast traffic. And they definitely will help parents allow their students to cycle to school once they leave their neighborhood school at age 9 and have to cycle further away, maybe crosstown. Right now, a lot of cycling stops at the 4/5 level for kids who cross the tracks to FAVE and then Renfroe. (And it happened in reverse when the 4/5 was at Glennwood.) There are some wonderful dedicated cycling parents and bike trains that keep it alive but the majority of kids who have to cross the tracks to the 4/5 are switching to the bus or car ride.
As a Decatur resident who lives on Church Street I’ve already given up on ever again being able to turn left out of my driveway during certain times of the day, so sure, let’s put Church on a “road diet” from the bottom of the hill up to Commerce. Traffic will back up even further along Church during rush hours, although if a dedicated right turn lane is retained going southbound maybe it won’t be so bad.
I’m also a cyclist. When I want to pedal into downtown I usually take Glendale or Sycamore. If I’m cycling through the Lakes I’ll take Ponce Place into town. However a bike lane on Church sounds like an interesting idea but I wonder how far north on Church it would extend. Church is already down to one lane of auto traffic each way as it goes by the park. Would this proposal extend the dedicated bike path all the way to Medlock/Forkner? If so, how would that impact parking lanes (from the last “road diet”) along Church? If not, will people use the dedicated bike path starting at Commerce since it just dumps back into traffic somewhere near the Decatur Inn?
Mr. Saxon’s letter mentioning another “road diet” for Commerce is worrisome. Commerce is the artery allowing traffic to bypass downtown Decatur. People coming from the south side of the railroad tracks from the Avondale area can avoid single lane traffic on Ponce. Taking away the second lane from Commerce makes the bypass less attractive. Traffic already backs up through the Commerce-Church intersection from Clairemont now. I would think putting Commerce on a “road diet” will make that worse in the morning, especially as Emory and CDC continue to expand their Clifton campuses. As this happens more people will try to avoid Commerce and use Ponce.
Who coined the term “road diet?” “Removing lanes” describes it just fine.
I’m a little worried about Church and Commerce. I have to take Church home through the squeeze now. It’s not too bad but seems like a waste of space to have those lanes blocked (but good for people going to the pool). I also 100 percent agree about Commerce. I’d much rather it stay four lanes. Wish it could be wide and have a path too! 🙂
So maybe not 100 percent agree after reading all the posts, and giving my commute on Commerce some more thought.
I want the focus in Decatur to be on anything but cars, but I don’t want to create a traffic nightmare. I think I am a little spoiled — I am willing to wait a bit if it makes for safer travel (but still fear the backup and traffic if Commerce is narrowed).
I was once hit by a car (actually I hit a car that pulled out in front of me) while on my bike in front of the mini Kroger. While I was flying through the air, landing on my elbow and picking up myself and my bike (from in front of the car, that then sped off without even asking if I was ok), I was worried that someone would come whipping around the curve and flatten me. I was very lucky that there was a lull b/c it was rush hour.
I’m reading up. Thanks for the interesting post and comments!
This appears suspiciously like Plan B to me.
But, but–there was no plan B!
I’m not sure if it needs a “road diet”, but something need to be done to slow traffic down on Commerce.
That’s the opposite of my experience. I’m alway stuck in traffic on Commerce! Snail crawl.
Crossing Commerce if very dangerous for pedestrians. People making right turns from Church have almost hit my children and I several time. Many motorists do not even slow down and ignore walk signals completely. I don’t see how this plan addresses pedestrian needs. If anything, it adds more lanes to cross (though they would be bike, not car lanes)
Sometimes I wish I had a little water gun filled with paint. Whenever a car didn’t stop for the walk, I’d give them a little tag. But, of course, that would not be legal. Sigh.
I have fantasized for years about a lightweight, industrial strength super-soaker filled with bad-smelling paint. Not to cause permanent damage, but should take at least two good scrubbings to get the vehicle clean.
You need to talk to Amanda Thompson and look at the plans. Commerce/Church and Commerce/Clairemont are going to be redone to make the intersection more pedestrian friendly. Pedestrian intimidation at those corners is a well known problem.
You two are pretty nice. I dream of a dart that would s-l-o-w-l-y (and safely) deflate tires — especially the tires of cars that use the shoulder of the road to pass others when there’s a line.
Yes! Those are some of my least favorite people. The same people cruise all the way down in a lane that’s been closed, long after the rest of us have merged into the remaining lane (like the big flashing arrow told us we needed to!). Ugh.
I cant believe people are endorsing this road diet on commerce… traffic already is bad on church in the mornings on commerce at the intersection of church and commerce. Going down to one lane will just make it 4 times as worse. Some of us have to drive to work, drop off our kids at daycare. Doesnt anybody understand how 90% of people live?? this plan makes no sense
Within Decatur, I doubt that you are correct. Many of us, likely more than 10% of us, have already changed either the way we travel, the times we travel or where we have to travel to. I am not (completely) unsympathetic to your travel problem, but it was a foreseeable consequence to your particular life choices, no? Job, house, children, child care, shopping/dining habits – all choices. I know that for some, the job changed and so then everything else had to also, but not for 90%.
I am in favor of almost any plans that slow people down when in cars, make people safer when walking/biking, and encourages more of the latter.
Walking and biking are simply not realistic alternatives to the vast majority of commuters my wife and I included. We walk for pleasure and to relax however we are not afforded the opportunity to walk to and from our jobs. It is not as though we moved to a far out suburb and are complaining about traffic that existed before we got there. We moved very close to our jobs and all of our family but to get these places requires a car and often requires traversing the intersections being discussed. The changes being discussed would negatively impact our commutes and lives significantly.
This project would greatly reduce the mobility of individuals on the south side of Decatur. I would likely change my route to use more residential streets instead of these main thoroughfares and I cannot imagine that is the intent of this project. There are many existing streets which are pleasant to walk and bike on without spending millions of dollars (I don’t care where the money came from) to tear up perfectly good roads and create additional traffic unnecessarily. It would be interesting to see the reports of the traffic engineers who evaluated the impact on traffic from this project. I assume such an analysis has been performed and it would only be a matter of finding the information. I have much more to say but will leave it at that.
+1
I don’t mind something (reasonable) to slow some of the traffic on Commerce, but removing lanes is insane.
this is crazy. I konw everyone wants a walking city but we do all still drive cars (Sorry to provide the facts!!!!) It already takes 10 min. to drive the 1/4 mile across downtown. I think that with all of this bottlenecking proposed, business in the downtown areas will begin to suffer! I think that there are also better areas to spend money (Fix the crazy K through 3 schools or get our kids out of trailers (We pay enought in taxes that it should not be an issue!)
-!!
I really like this FLAT cross section rendering of the proposed bike track/multi use trail, but I noticed the current hill on Church Street is too steep. This is unfair to people with single speed bikes. Maybe the City could buy and fill in all the low areas between the highest point downtown and soon to be annexed Suburban/Walmart plaza. They could fill in the low spots with rubble from all the eliminated vehicle lanes. If any private homes are too low they could be filled and turned into dog parks. Do it for the children.
OMG. I love the idea of leveling out church between Walmart Plaza and the square. I had just been thinking over the weekend that what the stops Decatur from being a true bike city are the hills. Maybe we could use part of the $4 Million to bring back the yellow bikes.
Brilliant!
I know it’s counter-intuitive to the people who depend on their cars, but all the bike stuff Decatur has done has been very, very good for business.
So before you complain “this is bad for business” how about some evidence? Not anecdotes, not “poor MEEESS” but evidence.
Decatur is a destination now, not a place you pass through on the way to somewhere else. It’s where the traffic slows down and goes to sleep in the parking deck, not a place you buzz through. And as a result business throughout the center of Decatur is booming, because that’s what the market wants.
If it takes people a couple of extra minutes to drive across downtown, but creates a safer, more inviting pedestrian experience, and allows for more biking, them I’m all for it.
This has been the approach Decatur has taken the past 20 years and it has been a huge success. We should keep it going.
Please, please, please do this to the Decatur demolition derby track (Commerce Drive) too.
I’m glad to read that several posters have not only questioned details of this project, but that several have written that the project is hard to believe.
There are very few of us that live on or depend on Church Street that remember the discussion in the 1980s concerning the widening of Church Street. I was and remember that one of the reasons for the project was to allow both visitors and business people easier access to downtown. Decatur would be prudent to consider if business people who pay high rents for an office in the Georgia Power building will continue to do so if traffic becomes more of a nightmare on Church and Commerce.
I find it interesting that posters on this blog who were so supportive of T-Splost (Untie Atlanta) now want to tie up Decatur traffic even more!
I’m glad to see that someone who actually lives on Church posted comments. One of the big problems is that the Church Street community has no support group. My experience over that past thirty years of living off Church is that both the Glendale and Great Lakes neighborhoods look down on us. Bike paths and road diets are good for Church but don’t even think about putting a bike path in our neighborhoods or restricting our drive.
There is no way this project is going to cost $4 million. The bridge over the creek will have to be rebuilt. I see this costing close to $10 million.
A previous poster used an expression about anti-bike rage. Not only will this project increase tension between drivers and bikers, but also walkers and bikers. Does anyone seriously believe that people will not use the bike lane as a sidewalk to the new development at Surburban Plaza? Bikers flying down the Church Street hills demanding that walkers get out of their space.
I attended several meetings concerning the Walmart store and at one of them, Mr. Bill Stogner mentioned that Selig wanted to bring in several high quality restaurants to the development. Decatur would be wise to consider that because people who drive here from Snelville and other northern burbs may find it much more convenient to just stop at Surburban Plaza for a nice meal and cocktail than to sit in Church Street traffic. Does anyone really believe that the big spenders at Brick Store, Leon’s, and other expensive businesses walk from the local neighborhoods? Do we really want to tie up our major road arteries?
I found one detail in the drawings to be correct already. You have one bike rider and quite a few vehicles. I rarely see bike riders on Church. This may be because they would rather bike through the Great Lakes, Glendale or the cemetery but even if the bike track costs $500,000 (probably much more), is it wise to spend so much to benefit so few?
Do I like anything about the proposal? Not really but at least the bike path is on the western side of Church and it is less likely that bikers demand that Norris Street, which has changed very little since the Civil War, be paved (“I didn’t buy a $10,000 European speed bike to race down Church only to get a flat tire from a piece of Noris Street gravel.”)
I do not find cyclists to be demanding. If anything, they are courteous to a fault, being small fish in the big sea of traffic.
The cyclists who soar through the stop signs on East Lake Drive are not courteous and do not appear to prefer an “up a lazy river” speed.
Well, you are lower in elevation than us, so it is kinda hard not to look down on you Church Streeters 🙂
Church Street north of downtown was one of the prettiest streets in Atlanta before they widened it. Such a lovely approach to Decatur. Sigh!
What did it look like? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a pic.
I’m going to go find some pictures and send them to you.
I would love to see the narrower Church St. too. I have no expertise in road or urban design but widening roads doesn’t seem to guarantee a better traffic situation. I don’t know how to articulate it but my gut tells me that I’d rather be walking, cycling, and driving on narrower, slower tree-lined four-lane road like the stretch of Clairemont from beyond Scott to Michigan than on a wide behemoth like Church north of Ponce -or Commerce. They feel like Buford Highway to me. If I’m going to be stuck in traffic within COD, I’d rather feel safe, pleasant, and not about to hit a pedestrian or wheel chair.
Regarding College Ave., the problem seems to be the design of left turns, traffic lights, etc., not the volume of traffic. In fact, I think that’s true for most of the traffic problems in Decatur. I never see huge backups of cars like one sees on N. Druid Hills or N. Decatur. It’s just that some of the intersections and/or lights hold everything up.
I don’t have the correct terminology for what I’m trying to express. The gist is that I’m not sure that increasing the width of roads to six or eight lanes would help traffic. Similarly, I think the number of lanes could be reduced without traffic buildups if other aspects of the road design were improved.
Widening roads to fix traffic is like buying a bigger belt to fix obesity. The best way to fix traffic is to get cars off the road. The best way to get cars off the road is to offer alternative transport methods. Thus, in a progressive place like we live, we get bike and ped lanes.
People, this ship has sailed. Read the community vision that comes from the recent strategic plan. We spoke, and this is what we wanted. Sure, people still drive cars, but we want a city built for people and not for cars. If your car doesn’t fit in downtown Decatur during your commute, then you should find a different place for your car. We apologize to your car for the inconvenience. Unless you work in downtown Decatur, maybe it’s not the best place to do your commuting.
I have yet to read a single post which suggests widening of any road. Perhaps I missed a post and someone could direct me towards it. People are simply expressing legitimate concern that this project would have a significantly detrimental effect on their commutes and their lives. I find the rest of your post somewhat condescending and will not spend my time, energy, or effort responding except to say your words reflect who you are.
You are right that no one suggested widening any roads. In my case, I’m saying that widening Church in the past did not necessarily help downtown traffic. And evidently the narrower Church was a lot prettier. Therefore I’m not sure that narrowing Church again will worsen downtown traffic. We don’t have long buildups of cars coming in and out of Decatur. Rather we have intersections, left turn lanes, and traffic lights that need redesigning to help traffic flow.
I don’t know this to be true from any expertise or experience, it’s just my speculation.
I can’t think of one road in Decatur that warrants widening. The worst congestion I see in Decatur is associated with the 3 major RR crossings along College/Howard. That is not a problem solved by road widening, but by better signals, turn lanes at those intersections AND better pedestrian crossings.
See above. No one has said anything about widening roads.
I remember those days! I clearly remember when Church Street was widened. I lived at 1023 Church Street and we ended up moving 6 months or so after the widening was finished because my parents thought it was simply too unsafe. Now I’m back in Decatur and own a home on Church Street. 9 or so houses up from ol’ 1023 and now, with my four boys, I can understand why my parents decided to move. While we love our house, living on Church is a tad scary at times.
Traffic IS a nightmare on Commerce. For me, the source of disbelief is why it’s allowed to continue.
This plan is overkill! Decatur HAS TO have some thoroughfares where people can enter and exit the city by car easily. Decaturites are forgetting some very important facts:
1) Decatur residents alone cannot sustain the Decatur businesses.
2) Office sector growth cannot continue if you make it a chore for business people to get Downtown.
3) Traffic calming is important, but you have to balance it with real life dynamics. Making every main intersection “ped friendly” doesn’t mean you have to make every thoroughfare narrow and controlled.
4) Why do you need in essence DOUBLE bike lanes? If you have a dedicated bike lane, then leave the center lanes for the cars.
5) As has been stated, traffic patterns were altered so that traffic would use Commerce as the main artery instead of Ponce. Church and Clairmont have already been narrowed. If there are plans to narrow Commerce, how exactly do you expect employees/ business owners to easily leave Decatur at the end of a workday. These are the people who help sustain most of our restaurants & retail businesses during the weekday. So let’s not minimize their presence because as many restaurant owners will tell you lunch tixs are what make or break a restaurant.
6) Why is Decatur voluntarily becoming VA-Highland (re: ingress & egress)?
Yes! What DH Dad said. Spot on!
Flex Time is a good start. I commute from Five Points daily and see very little traffic between downtown and Decatur after 6:00 PM.
Flex time? For the courthouse, retail and restaurants? For janitors and construction workers? Secretaries and receptionists? Nurses and orderlies? That’s a solution? Okay.
I repeat:
“Yes! What DH Dad said. Spot on!”
Traversing the 4 square miles around or through – I prefer through so as the ‘bypass” gets narrowed, I’ll find more residential streets to use before going around. You folks living on streets adjacent to downtown better get educated and vocal about what how this plan impact your neighborhoods.
I love how the rendering clearly depicts a dedicated 2 lane bike path, and yet some arrogant biker is hogging an auto lane right down the middle. Classic.
You’re getting angry at a drawing of a guy on a bike? That comment seems ruder than a cyclist legally riding on the rode. It’s necessary occasionally to make a left turn. That’s hard to do from the shoulder.
I’m not getting angry. Did you miss the words “I love..”? Biking activists amuse me.
My standard disclaimer – I bike to work. Sometimes.
When you don’t drive.
I remember these same predictions of traffic armageddon when West Ponce from the Post Office to Scott Boulevard was going to be reduced from four lanes to two. There would be traffic backups for miles onto Ponce, the car addicted masses would say.
But you know what? West Ponce is a much improved thoroughfare now. Traffic has been calmed, yet moves efficiently at almost all times of the day except at maybe 35 miles per hour instead of 45-50. Why would the result be any different with Church Street? We want cars to slow down in Decatur.
And, no, I’m not really concerned that Brick Store, Leons and 246 are going to be hurt by a new Ruby Tuesday or PF Changs opening up in the Wal Mart shopping center. I’m not part of the “Stop Wal Mart” crowd, but that area is going to be such a traffic and car congested clogged nightmare, I think that Decatur will become an even more special place for visitors. Lets let Decatur do what it does best. And making it easier for cars, at the expense of pedestrians, is not what made Decatur what it is today.
Everything Marty says on this thread: +1. Decatur is unique because we are decidedly NOT auto-centric. My scientific polling says 90% of us who live here like it that way. I vote for a road diet on more streets.
I didn’t support T-SPLOST, but I do support this.
So drivers won’t be able to pick up speeds of 60 on Commerce anymore, were those people stopping at businesses in Decatur, or just getting to where ever they were going? I have watched someone in a wheelchair try to get across Commerce a couple of times, and was frightened for them. Cars coming from every direction, and not at a reasonable speed.
Also, there’s something to be said for improving upon, and trying to keep the distinction of a small town feel, and making it so more people can walk and roll around safely is a huge part of that. This is a uniqueness from nearby areas that have retail/restaurants. More attractive and desirable in my opinion.
Increasing rage between cyclists and drivers? We’ll be out of the way now. Mad if we’re in the road, and mad that we’re not.
Here is the problem with this conversation. The auto advocates acknolwedge the need and desire for safe biking and walking, but suggest that practical realities (such as the fact that the vast majority of us use our car everyday) need to be considered. But, for the most part, the bike advocates (maybe more than10% of us (who actually knows), but undoubtedly a vocal minority) have basically said they don’t give a damn about the majority and told everyone who didn’t like the plan to “F Off” b/c they want bike lanes (and sharrows). Improving safety for everyone (which includes pedestrians, cyclists and evil drivers of cars) needs to be considered. And guess what, if the vast majority of people entering and leaving Decatur do so in cars, that should outweigh the vocal minority. We need to find alternatives which improve safety for cyclists and peds, but do not negatively impact the flow of automobile traffic. At some point, you will negatively impact business in Decatur if it is just too much damn trouble to get here.
If car safety is to be considered than shouldn’t you advocate for worse traffic flow? The more you slow down car traffic the safer everyone is, no?
I didn’t advocate for either. I was only making an observation about the unwillingness of one side of the argument to consider the other’s points.
You may be right about slowing down traffic increasing safety. But, safety isn’t the only consideration. If it was, the speed limit on every street would be about 10 mph. The trick is to find the perfect balance between safety and efficient, quick traffic flow. This plan may or may not do that. But, in evaluating the proposals, we need to view them through a realistic lens and not ones based on utopian views of a vocal minority (although, their concerns need to be considered and addressed to the extend possible or practical without creating a huge negative impact on everyone).
Utopian views of a vocal minority? Bicycling infrastructure improvements are strewn throughout the 2010 Decatur Strategic Plan, in which over 1,000 people participated.
Also, the 2012 Citizen Survey shows that positive response to “ease of car travel in Decatur” is at its highest level since the survey was started back in 2006. How is this possible if we’re to believe that moving in this direction is placing us on the verge of having a “huge negative impact on the vast majority”? Decatur may be into ‘road diets’, but we seem to forget in these conversations that they’re also into improving traffic flow with the comparably expensive rebuilding of entire intersections.
Sorry, let me clarify. The utopian views comment was referring only to those who demand bike lanes without any consideration for the impacts and/or think cars should be removed from Decatur. Re-read my comments – where have I once stated that we shouldn’t make bicycle infrastructure improvements? Again, I haven’t commented on this specific proposal, so please don’t interpret my comments as either for or against it. But, the legitimate concerns expressed by the majority about the negative impacts of this proposal should be considered. IMHO, reducing/restricting major arteries into and out of a city will have a negative impact at some tipping point, and we need to be wary of that.
OK, but it’s hard not to interpret your comments as for or against it when you label one side as having a “utopian” view and the other being the “legitimate concerns of the majority”.
Is Church Street currently restricted by the two lanes?
Just my bias showing through 🙂 I haven’t read up on this proposal enough to have formed an opinion. Just want all POVs considered, and the convo wasn’t heading in that direction IMO.
It is in the morning w/ cars coming into Downtown. You have to at some point acknowledge that Atlanta Metro is car-centric. I would like to see the effort and emphasis placed on the neighborhood streets re: bike-ways w/ some strategic areas where needed.
If it becomes more difficult for cars to move in and out of Decatur, there will be a negative impact on business. Commerce is the last stand re: getting in and out quickly.
IMO the issue is making the crossings more ped friendly. There should be more of an effort to that that as opposed to narrowing all of the streets.
BTW – Clairmont is a nightmare both morning and evening.
I would argue that this plan is about halting traffic, not slowing it down. I am actually for making vast areas easily accessible by foot and bike BUT not providing an alternative for cars is asking for pollution and anger leading to confrontations and avoidance of our city by visitors. Put Church and Commerce on a diet IF you offer a reasonable alternative for the inevitable vehicle traffic.
Can you explain a bit more about how the plan halts traffic? Church is already two lanes, and folks concerned about traffic seem to be arguing that there’s a “traffic flow” issue because of the change. However, as evidence they are citing congestion at intersections. To me that sounds like the intersection needs to be redesigned and has little to do with the number of lanes on the road.
Look at Commerce going west in the morning–bottlenecked from Clairmont until way past Little Kroger every morning. Look at Commerce coming from/going to Howard morning and evening. Traffic is already bottlenecked on the road that’s meant to be the bypass. Choking it more is going to make it worse. I would think cars idling in traffic is also going to present air pollution.
“Slower” traffic is not necessarily safer traffic. Slower traffic can create frustrated drivers who develop work arounds – and I don’t mean biking.
Your examination of each side’s position and tactics suggests they’re currently on equal ground and bike advocates are trying to dominate. But the reality is that bike and ped advocates are simply trying to catch up to a point where they’re as readily accommodated on our streets as cars are. For there to be parity, cars are going to have to give up some ground. Not because they’re being punished but because the scales are currently tipped too far in their direction and Decatur’s community-driven plan calls for that to be corrected.
A general comment, not necessarily for DawgFan: It’s also unfair to say, “Look at all that space for bikes when our roads are used primarily by cars.” That suggests we’re trying to continue the present reality when, if fact, Decatur’s street plans are aspirational. They are intended to reinforce a particular character and facilitate behaviors that contribute to its healthy growth and evolution.
“But, for the most part, the bike advocates (maybe more than10% of us (who actually knows), but undoubtedly a vocal minority) have basically said they don’t give a damn about the majority and told everyone who didn’t like the plan to “F Off” b/c they want bike lanes (and sharrows).”
Would it surprise you to learn that most cyclists also have cars, and use them to get to work and around as well?
Daydreamer, you are exactly right. I bike and I drive. When I go to work, I drive for a variety of reasons. I moved to Decatur before Church Street went on its “diet” and now find myself turning right out of my driveway in the morning to go outside the city limits (where Church is four lanes) to turn around and come back south through the city since it is difficult and dangerous to turn left in the morning.
Quite a few people who work in the city, especially at the Courthouse (which has been expanded greatly since I moved to Decatur), Candler Building, and other Dekalb County government buildings live outside Decatur. They work in the city that is their county seat and I’m sure have all sorts of fun making their way to the large Courthouse parking deck down Church past the Square or via Commerce to Trinity. I’m sure the pools of jurors from around the county share in that fun. Maybe as Decatur becomes more difficult to enter and leave county workers will just simply find other jobs. The jurors will simply have to lump it or maybe we can convince the county long term to abandon Decatur and expand the ugly complex on Memorial Drive.
As stated, I also bike, however when I bike into downtown I take Sycamore, Glendale, or go through the Lakes. These are smaller neighborhood streets and work well for biking. They serve quite well for bicycle access to downtown Decatur and I employ them often.
I drive on Church, Clairmont, and Commerce. I bike on Sycamore, Glendale, Ponce Place, Superior, etc. If it becomes too difficult to drive on Church, Clairmont, and Commerce I suspect I’ll start driving on Sycamore, Glendale, Ponce Place, Superior, etc. as will others. But at least I’ll then be able to bike on Church, Clairmont, and Commerce. I’m not sure the folks who live on Sycamore, Glendale, Ponce Place, Superior, etc. would say this is a good trade.
Most people already think that it is just “too much damn trouble” to get to Decatur, given that we’re not near any major interstate highways. Yet, we seem to be thriving despite that. In fact, I think we are thriving BECAUSE OF the fact that we are not an auto centric community. People come to Decatur, to live and visit, because we are different than almost every where else in Metro Atlanta. Let’s build on that and not implement public policy because it might take someone an extra 2 minutes to move across down via Commerce or Church. That is short sighted.
Once again, Marty: +1
I work in the burbs. You might be amazed at how many people I know out here who frequently travel to Decatur to dine at one of the many great restaurants or attend one of the many festivals. Decatur isn’t too much trouble to get to, and I want to keep it that way. Hopefully we can make some needed improvements without sacrificing accessibility.
I can see the value in narrowing the roads. I am also an avid bicyclist, and I am all for better for infrastructure for cyclists, as well as pedestrians. So I am all for this plan, EXCEPT for the massive bike path. I have two main reasons: 1) I would rather see bicycle lanes better integrated with the street. This helps drivers and cyclists learn to better coexist. It also allows the cyclists to have better flexibility accessing side streets off of Church. 2) The bike path is almost certainly the most expensive part of this project. Yes, the funds are already there for the city to use on these sorts of projects, but I believe there are better ways to use the money (other street projects, improved landscaping, etc.).
It’s probably worth pointing out that the rendering DM chose was one of several proposed designs. If you go to the link, check out the first rendering, which looks to be a lower cost plan with bike lanes rather than the bike path.
Ah, good to know!
There is absolutely no need for both bike sharrows and a dedicated bike path.
Why not go ahead and ban cars?
Cars are so last century.
If someone would just hurry up and invent the “Beam me up, Scotty!” machine, all of this would be moot!
As someone who has lived in Los Angeles and NYC in the past, I think we are spoiled about getting through Decatur quickly. Even during the morning and evening rush hours, I don’t find Commerce, Ponce, or Clairemont to be that bad. Bad is being in Alpharetta and trying to commute via 400 south in the morning. For me, the only really frustrating part of Decatur traffic is getting across the tracks. That’s when I wish I’d bought the helicopter option for the minivan.
Seriously? We are four square miles. If we can’t get around quickly, something is wrong.
When I am honest with myself, rather than impatient, it never takes me less than 10 minutes and never more than 15 minutes, to drive anywhere in Decatur. As someone on a dead serious schedule at times, not wanting to be the last parent to do pick up which reduces dramatic child to tears, I have timed this over and over again. It’s a bit like the loaves and fishes and huge crowd story, doesn’t matter what the circumstances, it’s 10-15 minutes to get my minivan from one part of Decatur to another.
Interesting quote to pass along…
“If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places.” – Fred Kent
If primary roads are congested motorists will use secondary (residential) roads. Speeders will always speed; it is simply a matter of what road they will be speeding on.
Those giant speed humps seem to be working well to slow people down on the residential street behind the Edgewood district. Not sure I can buy into the idea that speeding will “always” happen and is a justification for planning.
I wouldn’t worry about traffic coming into Decatur on Church. No one is going to be able to drive past the clustertraffic at the new WalMart.
Slimming down Church AND Commerce clearly limits car flow through the city and leads to heavy traffic and pollution. Fine. Come up with a plan that allows for pedestrians and bikes on the interior of the city AND easy car access both to and around (not through) Decatur. Make Ponce a Pedway. Turn Church into a bike path. My family and I will enjoy these amenities. IF I can still get to and from my home and work.
The assertion that it takes an extra 2 minutes to get through Decatur in a car is a glib statement made by someone that doesn’t commute to the opposite side of the city.
Awesome!!
I think these plans are great. I live in Atlanta so I can be close to work, but my wife and I visit Decatur frequently. Sometimes we come by car, sometimes by bike, sometimes by MARTA. But it’s progressive planning like this that keeps us coming back (and spending money!). I’ll take a somewhat slower trip on the occasions that I drive to Decatur in exchange for the charm and sense of place – not to mention the extra safety – that projects like this provide.
Keep it up Decatur. I hope Atlanta will follow your example!
This reminds me of a question someone asked me once: Why do people say, “I’m *in* traffic” when they should really be saying “I *am* traffic”? 🙂
What is the current and projected number of bike transits along Church St passing Glen Lake park?
How was this bicycle traffic volume counted & projected?
As others have noted, there really isn’t much, if any, bike traffic on Church at present.
There was not much bike and pedestrian activity on W Ponce between Scott and St. Thomas More School before onstreet parking and bike lanes were incorporated into the street plan. If you spend much time along there you will see that it is now used and enjoyed by a great number of active residents, including the homeowners.
I’m curious about the bike path and side street traffic.
I assume that cyclists crossing the side streets would behave like pedestrians, stop and look before crossing since it would essentially be a sidewalk that allows bicycles rather than a bike lane that should obey vehicular traffic laws. Is that correct? Since it’s a two-way bike traffic path, then motorists coming out of the side streets will have to be even more cautious than usual since the bikes move a lot faster than pedestrians on sidewalks and they’d be coming from both directions. And should cyclists who need to cross over to the other side of Church go to a corner first and cross as pedestrians? Or get into the side street and cross as vehicle traffic?
I like the PATH multi-use trail along the railroad tracks, but it works because there are only a couple of crossings.
I know, I sound like I’m nit-picking. But cycling in traffic makes sense when you follow normal traffic rules. I think the reason a lot of cyclists break the rules is because when they were kids they were told to ride on the sidewalk and don’t learn that they are traffic.
I share your concerns regarding the plan shown. I think bike lanes are safer for the reasons stated, though I can live without paths or lanes if pavement is well maintained.
Anyone else remember when you had to maneuver your bike around storm grates to keep your tires from being trapped? We’ve come a long way, baby.
Less than 10% of employed Decaturites live and work in 30030. over 1/3rd of us commute more than 10 miles each way. No commentary, just some data to frame the discussion.
I wonder how many residents operate from home offices? Our street has many.
I do not work in 30030 and consider myself fortunate to need to commute fewer than 10 miles. I follow Scarlet O’Hara’s commute route daily, on a bike, though, not a buggy.
I think the 2012 citizen survey had it at 11%.
Hi fellow Decaturites,
You know what the biggest problem with this proposal is? It is not the expense (which to me seems too great for the benefit). Nor is it the effect on downtown business (whther it helps or hurts), nor the effect on commuters, the cycling community, nor adjacnet homeowners.
The single biggest problem witht his plan is that it is a project without context. By that I mean there may be some worhty goals in the Decatur developemnt plan – but whoever comes up with this particular project went form an abstract goal to the details of a aparticular project with no Masterplan (and therefore no study of ramifications goodor bad) in place.
I am an architect by profession and can state with some authority that piecemeal approaches seldom generate a desireable outcome in the design of big projects. The City of Decatur IS a BIG project and we warrant the kind of results that can be achieved with that level of design and thinking.
A much better apporach, in my mind, would be for the city to authorize the development of a masterplan with a number of options that depicts how the city might look and function at some point in the future – say 10-15 years out. THEN lets decide what specific projects make ssense to do and in what order. Perhaps, for $4 million, we would rather close off Ponce between Church and Commerce (as we routinely do for festivals) and make this a permanent pedestrian corridor, perhaps we will determine that Clairmont needs to be enhanced, perhpas we will decide that the currently proposed project is just the thing to do and we will do it. But to do any project outside the context of the larger picture is foolish. With a Big Picture approach we would be able to better identify the problems and consequences and respond to them in a holistic way.
I’m not sure I get the absence of context. The city’s got a master transportation plan that was developed through public process and has been in effect for five years. What’s happening now is that they’re nearing potential funding and implementation on recommendations that were proposed, reviewed and adopted in 2007. Are you saying we should scrap that plan and start all over?
http://www.decaturga.com/index.aspx?page=422
Ahh, I see the confusion. We are both using the word “plan” but meaning two different things.
In my world, the written document that you are reffering to is considered to be a “program” that describes the desired outcome of the “plan”. The “plan” in this case would be a physical drawing of the city with all of the proposed projects shown in context with the city as a whole and with each other.