Decatur Neighborhood Alliance to Meet with City on Speed Limit Proposal Next Week
Decatur Metro | October 16, 2013Also from the Decatur Focus this month…
Decatur Neighborhood Alliance will meet on Wednesday, October 23, 6:30 p.m., at Decatur City Hall. Lena Stevens, Resource Conservation Coordinator, will provide an update on the City of Decatur’s Speed Limit Study and Proposal. Learn about the research conducted, and how the proposal relates to the Georgia Department of Transportation’s Complete Streets Policy, as well as the Decatur Community Transportation Plan.Representatives from Decatur neighborhood associations, condominium associations, block associations, and anyone interested in starting a neighborhood group are invited to attend. City staff willbe available to answer questions. Call 678-553-6548 or email leeann.harvey@decaturga.com to confirm your attendance and/or update your neighborhood association listing that is currently posted on the website.
Latest from Decaturish
Slow ‘em Down!!!
25 MPH on N. Decatur Rd.!!!!
Knock yourself out and make it 25, almost no one will obey it. Nor should they.
Almost none of N. Decatur Rd. is in COD. Take it up with Dekalb County or the state if you want changes.
The speed limit on South Candler just south of Midway Road was recently raised from 25 MPH to 35 MPH. Guess that was a GDOT change, though. 25 did seem a little low for that road.
I would be happy if the speed limit on city streets was “20 mph unless otherwise posted”. 25 mph is too fast for some of the winding and sight restricted streets of Decatur IMHO.
“Learn about the research…”
If I may pretend to be a high and mighty Decatur liberal for a moment, and attempt to translate this phrase for the uneducated masses (those who didn’t attend Columbia or Harvard), “learn about the research” will try to convince you that reasonable speed limits for some city streets, like 35 MPH on S.Candler, the Ponces, Church, and 40MPH on Scott are dangerous, even though no evidence has been presented to show that most drivers can safely drive at these speeds. This is all about pushing the agenda of the strategic plan- more density, bike lanes, wider sidewalks, regulations, fees, and higher taxes. And what will happen when people can no longer drive into Decatur, to work or spend big money at our bars and restaurants because traffic is at a standstill, and taxes are outrageous for even high income parents? People and businesses will move. And those stuck holding the bag will be the suckers who worked hard to pay off their two bedroom, one bath craftsman bungalows, which they could not sell because of the moratorium.
Sorry that I failed to include the tree huggers in this rant but I have to get back to Fox News. Maybe next time.
That has to be one of the most illogical posts I’ve ever seen on this blog.
+1
I’m surprised CB didn’t also weave the government shut down or debt ceiling into that post.
Why? If I may, it seems pretty clear that Mr. B is saying no proof of a dangerous condition has been offered, yet we’re asked to assume the speed limits are dangerous, so he assumes there must be some unstated, ulterior motive for the desire of many to lower speed limits in and around town.
First of all, who’s being asked to assume anything? But leaving that aside, it all somehow leads to an exodus of businesses from Decatur (which, based on many of CB’s previous comments, he’d likely be fine with for the most part, as long as CFA stayed) and increases in property taxes?
We are being asked to assume that reducing the speed of motor vehicles will increase pedestrian and bike safety. Isn’t that the basis of this entire study and proposal? CB’s post simply points out that this assumption is not evidence based but rather emotionally based. It is a valid point.
Not that I necessarily agree with lowering speed limits, but isn’t it also just an assumption that doing so would make traffic worse?
“CB’s post simply points out that this assumption is not evidence based but rather emotionally based.”
“Simply”? Just where do you get that from? It seems the point was to attack the Strategic Plan and make illogical (and apparently emotionally based) assumptions while mocking educated liberals in Decatur.
But we’re not being asked to _assume_ that it’s dangerous. Mr. B himself quotes that the neighborhood alliance is going to share the research that they claim justifies the proposal. Mr. B takes this as an opportunity to vent, using a bunch of insulting generalizations about “high and mighty Decatur liberals” who went to fancy-pants colleges looking down on the “uneducated masses.” He then moves on to a general rant about the strategic plan, and asserts that lowering speed limits is going to make the city tank. I’m not convinced that the proposal is a good idea, but that’s absurd.
If people want to look into the reasons behind the proposal and say they don’t hold up, or give general arguments for why it’s misguided to try to lower speed limits here in the city, that’s great. (Offhand, I think that enforcing the current limits more extensively might be better than lowering the limits.) But Mr. B’s comment isn’t helpful for starting a conversation about the issues.
“But Mr. B’s comment isn’t helpful for starting a conversation about the issues.”
Shocker.
What’s with the grudge?
No grudge. No free passes on nonsense either. Since he often uses sarcasm here to insult the majority of people living in COD, I assume he can handle a little in return from me.
“asserts that lowering speed limits is going to make the city tank.”
I don’t think that’s a fair reading — he is connecting the speed limit issue to the strategic plan generally and saying the panoply of actions arising from the strategic plan, including worse traffic and higher taxes, will cause people to move. I express no opinion on that, though I agree with him that lowering speed limits is pointless at best.
Yes, his post was impolitic, but that doesn’t make it illogical, much less the among the most illogical things ever posted here. That is, after all, a pretty high hurdle to jump.
“I don’t think that’s a fair reading”
So we’re supposed to give a fair reading to an insulting, poorly constructed rant? I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on lowering speed limits, but I’m averse to parsing vitriolic sarcasm in order to connect the dots of someone else’s opinion.
You’re not supposed to do anything. Do what you want.
“but that doesn’t make it illogical,”
Proceeding entirely from assumptions to reach a conclusion, as CB most certainly does, is one of the definitions of illogical.
I am not a professional philosopher but I think you are wrong about that. We reason from assumptions all the time, and logical conclusions can be drawn from assumptions, even if the assumptions turn out to be wrong.
Check the Wiki entry for “false premise.”
petitio principii.
Regardless, even if the assumptions were correct, the conclusion doesn’t follow from them.
“…even though no evidence has been presented to show that most drivers can safely drive at these speeds.”
Aren’t you making their point for them here? Because I would also agree that there is no evidence that drivers can safely drive at most speeds. And I say that as a driver, cyclist, pedestrian…
I do believe me and Mr. B find some common ground here. His assertion is that this “is all about pushing the agenda of the strategic plan” and, to that, I reply, “You are correct, sir!”
Now, the subtext that carries with it is this: The Strategic Plan is the articulated wishes of the electorate, broken into a series of principles, goals and associated tasks. It’s certainly not perfect in expressing the position of every single Decatur resident but, as Mr. B knows, that’s not relevant because such perfection is not the goal of, nor possible in, a functioning democracy. Instead, if you’re lucky enough to live in a community that values participation and, with it, leadership accountability, you get as close as you can. You convene a wide enough array of participation opportunities to ensure that everyone who wants to contribute can and then you accept and categorize those contributions as a representative sample.
You come up with things to get done, and then you press leadership to follow through. That’s what’s happening here.
So, yes, this *is* about pushing the Strategic Plan. The difference is, where Mr. B sees liberal subversion in action, I see responsive leadership.
To-may-toe, to-mah-toe!
The problem is when you start with the premise that the Strategic Plan is bad (or maybe it’s “any strategic plan is bad”?) and succumb to the temptation to view positive outcomes as negative because they proceeded from the plan. I infer that sort of thinking from many of his rants.
Keep in mind that Mr B proudly will tell you that he deliberately refused to participate in the Strategic Plan process.
Thereby reserving for himself the right to criticize in perpetuity its goals, process, and outcomes. (or not)
Thanks Scott. Glad to read something about seeking common ground. This is also called compromise which I would like to see more of in our town and country.
Just one more thing and I’m not adding this to creat any more controversy. I agree, more or less, with much of what you wrote except the phrase liberal subversion. The strategic plan is liberalism in action. There was nothing subversive about the process. I knew what would happen based on my experience with the first plan. The people and interest groups that IN MY OPINION dominated the SP process see Decatur, the U.S., and the rest of the world very differently than I do. Normally I tolerate these differences pretty well, “Live and Let Live” but what is being proposed, city wide speed limit reductions, Commerce/Church street traffic diets, moratoriums, etc. will dramatically change the lives of Decatur citizens and visitors to our town. My postings, illogical or well written, may cause others who would normally dismiss my opinions, to think about the unintended consequences of government policy. In ten years, Decatur may be the shining liberal city on the hill or it could be a traffic and high tax/regulation nightmare. Now is the time to think about this.
I feel that all drivers should be required to “walk” their car through the city limits. For safety sake bikes should obey the same law. Then you have a true walk city.
It’s the ultimate speed trap and the fines will fall like rain.
I look forward to presentation of evidence that city speed limits need to be reduced. As a resident who drives, bikes, and runs in the city I’m not convinced, but may be following some hard numbers about cities with similar reductions who saw corresponding decreases in traffic accidents and cyclist/pedestrian injuries. Likely I think I’ll see a mixed bag with some justification to reduce speed limits on narrow residential streets, but less need to reduce limits on thoroughfares designed for higher speeds, including Scott, Clairmont, and Church. We’ll see.
As an aside, I wonder if reducing speed limits does much to reduce traffic speeds. Maybe the evidence presented will show this, but I don’t think lowering the limit on Scott by 5 mph will necessarily bring drivers into compliance. Many routinely ignore the current limit and will do so for any reduced limit absent frequent and visible enforcement. As a resident who lives along Church Street, I believe drivers who travel Church do so below the current speed limit when traffic is so congested they simply can’t move any faster.
One thing I try to keep in mind is that Decatur is the county seat. As such it does have a need to provide auto access for people who live outside the city so they can get to the courthouse and other county buildings. Non-COD jurors, county government staff, and citizens who have business with the county have more limited transportation options getting to the city and there are plenty of them given the backup each morning and afternoon on Church and Trinity. I believe this sometimes gets lost in the conversation about reducing auto lanes, speed limits, and parking options for various reasons. I enjoy walking and cycling in and through the city but since the city isn’t isolated from the county I would also welcome some county resident input into how COD’s traffic calming and reduction strategies impact them, especially those who must commute in daily.
As a city resident I got the chance to put in my two cents a few months ago. I look forward to seeing the research next Wednesday, but I think I already know the outcome. We’ll see if the evidence supports it.
Chris Billingsley and WalterM:
Allow me to introduce myself. My name is James Johnson. I live on South Candler Street — specifically, the portion that opens up into three lanes for several blocks.
You want “evidence that city speed limits need to be reduced”? Well, look no further! I invite both of you to come to my house, sit on my front stoop, and watch traffic pass by at 65 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. You think I’m joking? Come over and prove me wrong. I’ll bring the beer and we can play “what would happen if that MARTA bus hit a kid on a bike at that speed?” Better yet, bring over your wives and children and we can take bets on how long they’re willing to stand on the sidewalk as traffic flies by. Bring your money, ’cause they’re not going to stand there for long!
And while you’re here, you can tell me to my face exactly how you will be inconvenienced by traffic calming in front of my house.
I look forward to meeting both of you.