This begins with two similar events, traffic accidents involving school children, the first over three years ago and the second, more recent, little over a week ago. Both have resulted in public outcry and a call for action.
The first accident resulted in an a serious injury and what has apparently been viewed at City Hall as a never ending chorus of whining and requests for increased traffic enforcement and other safety measures. To the City's credit they would respond with a patrol, the mobile speed trailer with associated sanitized eighty-fifth percentile reports and installed a now dead and buried middle-of-the-road crosswalk sign. To the resident's point these patrols have become little more than feeble placations and the obvious conclusion of a destroyed crosswalk sign seems to have escaped our Public Safety team at City Hall. The residents being persistent have even reached out to a Councilman to come to the scene and witness first hand the hazardous conditions that persist to this day. This request was denied.
Little over a week ago all this changed. This same Councilman's son was involved in a similar accident, saved from potentially mortal injury by the quick thinking and deliberate action of a crosswalk guard. And let's be very clear on one point: at any time since the creation of this city were one to stack rank our elected officials based on any objective criteria this Councilman's name would appear at the top. Not near the top. At the top. This Councilman has now put the full force of his office and credibility in the community behind addressing the traffic safety issues and the hazardous conditions that prevail throughout our community. Not just his neighborhood but citywide.
This Tale of Two Cities is not so much about the contrasts of two traffic accidents or to disparage the fact that the City may now finally do the right thing and do it well or to in any way discourage them from that course of action.
What these events speak to is a widening rift between the elite class in Dunwoody and the plebeians they rule.
Were a parent or concerned citizen to approach Council to speak up about the first accident and what to do about it, they would be limited to three minutes of Council's precious time whilst a Councilman endures no such restriction on his freedom to speak. When a tragedy befalls a mere citizen the City has a muted reaction, but not so when it touches one of their own. It is this separate, this unequal reaction to and treatment of people and events that has created a class separation so distinct and so wide as to be missing only a proclamation from the Mayor of "Let Them Eat Cake".
This was evidenced in the recent council meeting when the Councilman recounted his son's accident and made recommendations for Citywide action. He was interrupted, rudely and inappropriately by what could easily be dismissed as a heckler. Though the behaviour was inexcusable it is explicable. There is an undercurrent of anger born of disenfranchisement not seen since citizen anger directed towards DeKalb was leveraged to form this City. There were or should have been adults in the room and this "heckler" should have been asked to leave. Instead there was a literal call to arms, a demand from the Chair that this person be removed by the police implicitly by force if necessary. This does little to show respect to citizens, any and all citizens, by this City.
It is imperative that we understand these events have revealed two separate problems. We have traffic safety issues in Dunwoody and while we can lament that it took a near tragedy affecting an elected official for this to get the attention it has long deserved we should not sacrifice the good that may come because this also exposes a growing chasm between our City and those they are to serve.
Showing posts with label roads. Show all posts
Showing posts with label roads. Show all posts
Monday, February 18, 2013
Friday, December 21, 2012
What's The Problem?
The first problem is that no one at City Hall seems to ever ask the question "what's the problem?" The City's inability to ask, and answer, that question prevents them from providing a cogent description of issues being addressed, potential solutions and the criteria for evaluating options. Simply because the fundamental problem is never clearly stated.
We've recently seen this with the Pavement SNAFUs. What was the real problem being solved by the high school roundabout? Were the intersecting streets thoroughfares or were they intended to become through-ways? If so, this should have been clearly stated upfront in the problem statement. Then prioritizing the importance of pedestrian traffic would be clear. Perhaps City Hall was afraid of being honest with the citizens by stating the dominance of business related traffic over residential traffic and related concerns.
A similar situation occurs with the IT efforts. They have only a hammer and consequently only see nails. Since they're always going to use the same hammer it is simply a waste of time to ask "what's the problem?" since they only see one solution. It's as if they believe the "I" in "IT" stands for "idiot". By refusing to clearly articulate the problem at hand they have been unable to prioritize concerns and make intelligent, informed technology decisions. And they waste quite a bit of our tax dollars fielding inadequate "solutions".
Until this City starts with a clear problem statement based on sound analysis that establishes clear goals any attempt to move forward will be met with resistance and every issue will become a wedge issue.
We've recently seen this with the Pavement SNAFUs. What was the real problem being solved by the high school roundabout? Were the intersecting streets thoroughfares or were they intended to become through-ways? If so, this should have been clearly stated upfront in the problem statement. Then prioritizing the importance of pedestrian traffic would be clear. Perhaps City Hall was afraid of being honest with the citizens by stating the dominance of business related traffic over residential traffic and related concerns.
A similar situation occurs with the IT efforts. They have only a hammer and consequently only see nails. Since they're always going to use the same hammer it is simply a waste of time to ask "what's the problem?" since they only see one solution. It's as if they believe the "I" in "IT" stands for "idiot". By refusing to clearly articulate the problem at hand they have been unable to prioritize concerns and make intelligent, informed technology decisions. And they waste quite a bit of our tax dollars fielding inadequate "solutions".
Until this City starts with a clear problem statement based on sound analysis that establishes clear goals any attempt to move forward will be met with resistance and every issue will become a wedge issue.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Transportation Modes
We seem all wrapped up in roads these days and we always come around to the question of "how do we get cars off the roads and get pedestrians and bikers on them?" yet we never question the underlying assumptions: pedestrians good; bikes better; cars bad. Unfortunately Dunwoody has more than its fair share of Luddites who cannot get past the antiquated idea that roads are purpose-built for cars and other motorized vehicles. To them it seems obvious, but those wanting to take their fair share of the asphalt away from cars see things differently.
Perhaps it would facilitate discussion if we could properly characterize transportation as one of two categories: destination transportation and recreational transportation.
Destination transportation is that antiquated fossil-fueled ICE driven modality, emphasizing effectiveness and utility over more important things like "it's good for you". Basically, destination transportation means automobiles. Parking. Commerce. Getting there, getting it done, getting back.
Recreation transportation is about the journey. Scenery. Fresh air. People contact. Basically, recreation transportation means "human powered". Walking, running, and biking. Not swimming yet, but plans are afoot to install a network of swimming canals throughout the 'Hood. Rumor has it a former mayor has a plan to freeze the canals so we can ice skate to and through the Village, much like what is done in Ottawa. Except their water just freezes.
The simple fact is we're not about to see grocery shoppers pedal up to Publix and Fred and Ethel are not going to waddle on over to Hickory House. And back. Weather, hills, and yes, automobile traffic make this less than unlikely. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with recreational walking and biking but let's be honest, only a very small percentage of human powered locomotion is for anything but recreation (while it is a stretch, we're considering exercise "fun").
The real question we need to address is just how much of our taxes (and yes, grants and other OPM) do we want to spend on recreation transportation and what are we willing to sacrifice with regards to destination transportation?
Perhaps it would facilitate discussion if we could properly characterize transportation as one of two categories: destination transportation and recreational transportation.
Destination transportation is that antiquated fossil-fueled ICE driven modality, emphasizing effectiveness and utility over more important things like "it's good for you". Basically, destination transportation means automobiles. Parking. Commerce. Getting there, getting it done, getting back.
Recreation transportation is about the journey. Scenery. Fresh air. People contact. Basically, recreation transportation means "human powered". Walking, running, and biking. Not swimming yet, but plans are afoot to install a network of swimming canals throughout the 'Hood. Rumor has it a former mayor has a plan to freeze the canals so we can ice skate to and through the Village, much like what is done in Ottawa. Except their water just freezes.
The simple fact is we're not about to see grocery shoppers pedal up to Publix and Fred and Ethel are not going to waddle on over to Hickory House. And back. Weather, hills, and yes, automobile traffic make this less than unlikely. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with recreational walking and biking but let's be honest, only a very small percentage of human powered locomotion is for anything but recreation (while it is a stretch, we're considering exercise "fun").
The real question we need to address is just how much of our taxes (and yes, grants and other OPM) do we want to spend on recreation transportation and what are we willing to sacrifice with regards to destination transportation?
Monday, November 19, 2012
Tongue Freed From Cheek
It seems quite a waste to spend $1136/ft on the Mt. Vernon to Chamblee-Dunwoody stretch of Dunwoody Parkway. Not only is this pricey, it doesn't solve any real problems. In an upcoming diatribe we'll rant about the differences between destination transportation and recreation transportation, but for now let's look at the Village and see what we can do.
First let's observe some sanity rules and objectives:
Tackling the 800 pound gorilla first the contentious part of the Parkway (shown above in green) would be reconfigured. Where possible trash trees (think Bradford Pear) in the median and those medians will be removed. Crepe myrtles are readily sacrificed as well. In the areas with no median the outer lane will become a small linear park with wide sidewalks and plantings including non-trash shade trees. You have one half the width of the median and the width of one traffic lane to work with on each side. In areas where there are high value, high quality trees in the median these will be preserved--there are a few. This will create traffic calming structures known as "center island narrowing" where lanes diverge around these retained medians. This is being used effectively on a similar road on at least one corporate campus in the area.
Now let's look at the oft neglected portion of Dunwoody Parkway stretching from Chamble Dunwoody down to the Publix center, past Car Repair Central and over to Restaurant Row ending at the four way behind Hickory House (shown in blue above). This certainly needs re-paving and curb improvements. Either the storm drain problem at the bottom of hill must be fixed or the area declared a federally protected wetland. This little stretch of road should not be costly to bring up to par with the rest of the Parkway, but it is important to the overall plan as will be shown shortly.
Then there are also some important additions (shown in red above). First, a round-about (the red circle) which is not only euro-chic but appropriately located near Dunwoody's British pub, and Alison's, whose proprietor sports a British accent, and D'Vine Wine bar, purveyors of wine from across Europe. Another critical component of the overall plan is an extension of the Parkway behind Moondog and dead-ending on Nandina after a dog-leg to the east. This route is already paved, but not as part of the Parkway and rights of way would need to be acquired and the roadway brought up to Dunwoody Parkway standards. Another added element is raised pedestrian crosswalks at key locations around the Parkway (shown as red squares) which not only provide clearly marked crossings for pedestrians but offer a similar alert for drivers. As a traffic calming measure they complement the center islands. There are other additions and changes, but these are largely minor, like fixing the Fresh Market entrance at the Chevron station which is awkwardly angled. A Citizens' Committee can handle these details.
And what do we get for all this trouble? Glad you asked.
First let's observe some sanity rules and objectives:
- Roads at or under a 25MPH limit will have not dedicated bike lanes--you'll share the road and if you cannot enforce a speed limit or share the road at these speeds there are deeper problems that no amount of pavement or striping will fix.
- The entire run of Dunwoody Parkway should be at or under 25MPH.
- Transportation IN the Village is not primarily for the benefit of those trying to get THROUGH the Village. We have through ways. Use them.
- Passive speed control measures should be used as we're not likely to see active measures in force.
- Some existing trees warrant saving but many do not and neither have a constitutional right to equal treatment or equal outcomes. Some will die, others will be planted.
- We need to address more than just the needs of special interests, be they cut-through drivers in a hurry to get where ever or bike riders in a hurry to get back where they started.
Tackling the 800 pound gorilla first the contentious part of the Parkway (shown above in green) would be reconfigured. Where possible trash trees (think Bradford Pear) in the median and those medians will be removed. Crepe myrtles are readily sacrificed as well. In the areas with no median the outer lane will become a small linear park with wide sidewalks and plantings including non-trash shade trees. You have one half the width of the median and the width of one traffic lane to work with on each side. In areas where there are high value, high quality trees in the median these will be preserved--there are a few. This will create traffic calming structures known as "center island narrowing" where lanes diverge around these retained medians. This is being used effectively on a similar road on at least one corporate campus in the area.
Now let's look at the oft neglected portion of Dunwoody Parkway stretching from Chamble Dunwoody down to the Publix center, past Car Repair Central and over to Restaurant Row ending at the four way behind Hickory House (shown in blue above). This certainly needs re-paving and curb improvements. Either the storm drain problem at the bottom of hill must be fixed or the area declared a federally protected wetland. This little stretch of road should not be costly to bring up to par with the rest of the Parkway, but it is important to the overall plan as will be shown shortly.
Then there are also some important additions (shown in red above). First, a round-about (the red circle) which is not only euro-chic but appropriately located near Dunwoody's British pub, and Alison's, whose proprietor sports a British accent, and D'Vine Wine bar, purveyors of wine from across Europe. Another critical component of the overall plan is an extension of the Parkway behind Moondog and dead-ending on Nandina after a dog-leg to the east. This route is already paved, but not as part of the Parkway and rights of way would need to be acquired and the roadway brought up to Dunwoody Parkway standards. Another added element is raised pedestrian crosswalks at key locations around the Parkway (shown as red squares) which not only provide clearly marked crossings for pedestrians but offer a similar alert for drivers. As a traffic calming measure they complement the center islands. There are other additions and changes, but these are largely minor, like fixing the Fresh Market entrance at the Chevron station which is awkwardly angled. A Citizens' Committee can handle these details.
And what do we get for all this trouble? Glad you asked.
- These improvements allow us to ban all left turns from shopping center parking lots on Chamblee Dunwoody. This is long overdue and eliminates one source of accidents that waste our police budget.
- Nandina can be made one-way south. Folks leaving Moondog will be able to turn right on Nandina, right on the Parkway to the round-about and have their choice of traffic lights to head their merry way. Something may catch their eye and they just might pick up a little something extra.
- Shoppers can move with relative ease through all areas of the Village without the current interference of commuter traffic.
- The City will get the consistent "look and feel" some seem to want.
Most importantly we get past the current dog fight created by focusing only on what some silly grant covers.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Dunwoody Pavement Paradox
If you're trying to figure out a simple answer to all things asphalt in Dunwoody then you're probably dizzy from all the spin. The problem is there is more than one distorted looking glass in this fun house. You cannot just follow the money and you cannot just look for the busy body who wants to run your life. You must consider both.
Take the interstate lane to be paved through old growth forest. Done deal. Chamois chafing bikers are hell bent on creating a Dunwoody just like Seattle or wherever the hell bicycle nirvana really is (and belongs). But they are "progressives" and that makes them right and you wrong. Just ask 'em.
Another on the special interest front is the High School Roundabout. Roundabouts are currently very trendy with the aforementioned "progressive" crowd. Just gotta have 'em, after all they are so euro-chic. Can't wait until they find out how euro-chic castles are. Real castles, not those shoddily constructed mcmansions. Anyway they attempted to validate their plan by hiring a consultant who never did a site visit and didn't even know about the high school. Little Fuqui Yuppee. Then the Not Around My Place folks pounced and shouted in Council's ear and like a wind-sock Council blew the NAMP's direction. Score one for the "interlacers".
Council were not listening so intently when the anti-parkway crowd tried to bend their ears. The plan is simple enough: spend two point four million dollars on zero point four miles of road. That works out to over eleven hundred dollars per running foot, not the kind of money that falls off trees. This plan includes de-paving--sacrificing one lane each way for sidewalks and bikeways so one might conclude the progressive bikers have won another battle. Naturally the interlacers came out in force, stealing a progressive mainstay, "save the trees", in an effort to stop the plan. But this is a case of follow the money, and the money is a grant that we've asked for and received and should we turn up our non-progressive noses, we'll not see another grant for quite some time. And we're addicted to OPM.
There's also the one point five million dollars pissed away on a building now left to rot. Why? Well, the official answer is this property is a necessary component of a cut-through from Shallowford over to Perimeter/Ashford-Dunwoody. In reality this is a bit of both follow the money and "we'll run your lives". You see the real goal was to acquire the old Shallowford/Emory hospital property allowing for an extension of the interstate lane through Brookrun and preventing the construction of those nasty ole apartments with those nasty ole people living in them. Just so happens that Peachford property was owned by the same folks and they wanted to unload all of them. If you think those deals were unrelated you're too stupid for this smart city.
Take the interstate lane to be paved through old growth forest. Done deal. Chamois chafing bikers are hell bent on creating a Dunwoody just like Seattle or wherever the hell bicycle nirvana really is (and belongs). But they are "progressives" and that makes them right and you wrong. Just ask 'em.
Another on the special interest front is the High School Roundabout. Roundabouts are currently very trendy with the aforementioned "progressive" crowd. Just gotta have 'em, after all they are so euro-chic. Can't wait until they find out how euro-chic castles are. Real castles, not those shoddily constructed mcmansions. Anyway they attempted to validate their plan by hiring a consultant who never did a site visit and didn't even know about the high school. Little Fuqui Yuppee. Then the Not Around My Place folks pounced and shouted in Council's ear and like a wind-sock Council blew the NAMP's direction. Score one for the "interlacers".
Council were not listening so intently when the anti-parkway crowd tried to bend their ears. The plan is simple enough: spend two point four million dollars on zero point four miles of road. That works out to over eleven hundred dollars per running foot, not the kind of money that falls off trees. This plan includes de-paving--sacrificing one lane each way for sidewalks and bikeways so one might conclude the progressive bikers have won another battle. Naturally the interlacers came out in force, stealing a progressive mainstay, "save the trees", in an effort to stop the plan. But this is a case of follow the money, and the money is a grant that we've asked for and received and should we turn up our non-progressive noses, we'll not see another grant for quite some time. And we're addicted to OPM.
There's also the one point five million dollars pissed away on a building now left to rot. Why? Well, the official answer is this property is a necessary component of a cut-through from Shallowford over to Perimeter/Ashford-Dunwoody. In reality this is a bit of both follow the money and "we'll run your lives". You see the real goal was to acquire the old Shallowford/Emory hospital property allowing for an extension of the interstate lane through Brookrun and preventing the construction of those nasty ole apartments with those nasty ole people living in them. Just so happens that Peachford property was owned by the same folks and they wanted to unload all of them. If you think those deals were unrelated you're too stupid for this smart city.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Dunwoody Park Forest Drive
A simple exercise of eminent domain will put sidewalks and our beloved bike lanes beside the existing road preserving the fine arboreal specimens dotting the median. This will not only provide for all those who walk to work in the village and those who bike to shopping but it will also remove crufty, dilapidated old trees like this one which overshadows the median suppressing the growth of far superior specimens (see above).
Get moving and email that windsock of a council today!
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
They Paved Paradise...
...and they put in a velodrome!
Or it least that's what it seems like in Dunwoody these days.
It was one thing to stripe off bike lanes during the re-paving process, especially on high traffic routes, but the plan to put an interstate-lane-wide impermeable concrete bike road through wooded parkland is odious. It would be like putting an interstate through a national forest so drivers can zip by and "see the scenery".
And just what has happened in the cycling world anyway? Doesn't anyone own a mountain bike? Wouldn't that be an appropriate ride through a nature park? It seems like the vocal wing of our cycling community are all Armstrong wannabes that will ride no less than the best road bike, they'll ride it wherever the hell they want, and if there isn't a road there they will cry like colicky babies until it gets built.
This fascist wing of cycledom not only holds drivers in contempt but they also have little regard for those they consider lesser riders on lesser rides. Mountain bikes might only warrant a condescending snort, but the sight of a beach-bike with pedal brakes and a flip-flop shod rider would have them in a hissy-pissy fit. These spandex-clad blivets sitting atop their Fuji Finests act as if the smallest bump would have that razor thin "saddle" performing an impromptu prostate exam. As painful as that might sound, the greater risk is it would put an eye out.
Or it least that's what it seems like in Dunwoody these days.
It was one thing to stripe off bike lanes during the re-paving process, especially on high traffic routes, but the plan to put an interstate-lane-wide impermeable concrete bike road through wooded parkland is odious. It would be like putting an interstate through a national forest so drivers can zip by and "see the scenery".
And just what has happened in the cycling world anyway? Doesn't anyone own a mountain bike? Wouldn't that be an appropriate ride through a nature park? It seems like the vocal wing of our cycling community are all Armstrong wannabes that will ride no less than the best road bike, they'll ride it wherever the hell they want, and if there isn't a road there they will cry like colicky babies until it gets built.
This fascist wing of cycledom not only holds drivers in contempt but they also have little regard for those they consider lesser riders on lesser rides. Mountain bikes might only warrant a condescending snort, but the sight of a beach-bike with pedal brakes and a flip-flop shod rider would have them in a hissy-pissy fit. These spandex-clad blivets sitting atop their Fuji Finests act as if the smallest bump would have that razor thin "saddle" performing an impromptu prostate exam. As painful as that might sound, the greater risk is it would put an eye out.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Parkway: The Real Problem
In a recent update a City Councilman hinted at a very real problem surfacing in the Parkway kerfuffle.
This selfishness also blinds us to the key point underpinning this repavement project. Somehow we got backed into a corner and are now presented only with a Hobson's choice.
Now if this situation was created by, at the request of and with the approval of Council 1.0 in an open and transparent manner, then all is well and good and the time for carping and complaining is over. It is now time to act on the plan. If Council 1.0 instituted the plan, began execution and passed the baton to Council 2.0, it is incumbent upon the current Council to take that baton and run with it, not throw it down and whine.
But the carping and complaining remains ceaseless, even on Council, making one question whether Council 1.0 was very involved in the actions that precipitated the "future grant poison pill". If not, then who did this?
The obvious place to look, if you are not the Police Department, would be at those closest to the action: the bureaucrats down at City Hall. Did someone at City Hall take the steps constituting an irrevocable commitment? If so, who did this? Did they have standing authorization to make million dollar commitments on behalf of City taxpayers? If so, this should be fixed immediately.
If this was some deal based on bureaucratic "initiative", as many suspect with Project Renaissance, then Council needs to act, first to terminate the offending bureaucrats and then to amend the process to prevent future disasters.
"... the City ran the risk of blacklisting from future grants if we cancelled the plan completely."This is a clear statement that we are driven by an ambition to spend other people's money--by way of grants. We at The Other Dunwoody will not entertain the claptrap about how we pay the taxes that fund these grants, or "getting our share", or how if we don't get the grant someone else will. We will simply suggest you research "The Tragedy of the Commons" and start taking some ownership of America and not just your back yard.
This selfishness also blinds us to the key point underpinning this repavement project. Somehow we got backed into a corner and are now presented only with a Hobson's choice.
Now if this situation was created by, at the request of and with the approval of Council 1.0 in an open and transparent manner, then all is well and good and the time for carping and complaining is over. It is now time to act on the plan. If Council 1.0 instituted the plan, began execution and passed the baton to Council 2.0, it is incumbent upon the current Council to take that baton and run with it, not throw it down and whine.
But the carping and complaining remains ceaseless, even on Council, making one question whether Council 1.0 was very involved in the actions that precipitated the "future grant poison pill". If not, then who did this?
The obvious place to look, if you are not the Police Department, would be at those closest to the action: the bureaucrats down at City Hall. Did someone at City Hall take the steps constituting an irrevocable commitment? If so, who did this? Did they have standing authorization to make million dollar commitments on behalf of City taxpayers? If so, this should be fixed immediately.
If this was some deal based on bureaucratic "initiative", as many suspect with Project Renaissance, then Council needs to act, first to terminate the offending bureaucrats and then to amend the process to prevent future disasters.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Parkway Redux
Reworking Dunwoody Parkway was part of the Dunwoody Master Plan attacked with vigor and fueled by the enthusiasm of referendum victory. That was then, this is now. And now, there will be (re)debate of the plan and its merits. We can learn a few things from this.
First, plans are nothing more than just that. Some lines on a drawing and words on a page with little or no relationship to what will be done, when it will be done or what it will cost. Any resemblance between plan and execution is a rare coincidence.
The other thing we can learn is the destructive impact of greed, in this case known as "matching funds" or "leverage". The belief (or even the reality) that the "planners" can dip into other people's money generally inflates the plan well beyond what is needed. Often we wind up with a plan so grand that it is offensive to sensible folks.
This seems to have happened with the Parkway to Nowhere. The grand plan requires ripping everything up, pavement, median and trees so as to reconfigure to a median-less two-lane with sidewalks and bike lanes. This is the "Cadillac" plan. A simpler, cheaper, but equally effective transformation would include conversion of the outside lanes into raised sidewalks and bike lanes, add raised pedestrian crossings, repave the center lanes, retain the median with its trees and double-lanes only at each end.
This probably is not expensive enough to warrant matching funds making it a non-starter for a modern city government.
First, plans are nothing more than just that. Some lines on a drawing and words on a page with little or no relationship to what will be done, when it will be done or what it will cost. Any resemblance between plan and execution is a rare coincidence.
The other thing we can learn is the destructive impact of greed, in this case known as "matching funds" or "leverage". The belief (or even the reality) that the "planners" can dip into other people's money generally inflates the plan well beyond what is needed. Often we wind up with a plan so grand that it is offensive to sensible folks.
This seems to have happened with the Parkway to Nowhere. The grand plan requires ripping everything up, pavement, median and trees so as to reconfigure to a median-less two-lane with sidewalks and bike lanes. This is the "Cadillac" plan. A simpler, cheaper, but equally effective transformation would include conversion of the outside lanes into raised sidewalks and bike lanes, add raised pedestrian crossings, repave the center lanes, retain the median with its trees and double-lanes only at each end.
This probably is not expensive enough to warrant matching funds making it a non-starter for a modern city government.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Urgent Care Needed
Really?
Now that all the TSPLOST whining has degenerated into whimpering it seems reasonable to ask a simple question:
What we don't know is how a chronic condition, one we had learned to live with, one that had gone into a very limited remission suddenly became critical. Why 2012? Why not 2006, ten years after the Olympics when the shine had gone all patina? Why not Y2K? If you believe the loudmouth who was pumping the TSPLOST nothing has been done on GA400 and I-285 since 1972, so why not the mid-eighties?
The answer is simple and unsurprising. The Feds are cutting back on the money they will dole out to Atlanta to prop up the Georgia DOT and other local interests. And we've become addicted to Fed Funding. Intentionally. And it's not like we have used these funds wisely. We've sqandered it to keep gasoline taxes artificially low, avoid applying impact fees to address the costs associated with development and hand out tax abatements like candy. That kind of hedonistic, drug addled thinking has put us in such a precarious position that the tiniest reduction in Fed Funds pushes us from chronic but manageable to critical, near death.
[1] @TOD we've not tacked on the "Jackson" as we're not sure whether that is about Jesse, Maynard, or Michael.
Now that all the TSPLOST whining has degenerated into whimpering it seems reasonable to ask a simple question:
What made this a crisis?Anyone who's lived in the metro region for more than five years knows a few things. Traffic here is pretty bad. You're one wreck away from an extra hour tacked on to a thirty minute commute. Most folks "ain't from around here" and where they're from they send their worst first. MARTA sucks. Always has, always will. Local politicians are as corrupt as they come and are second only to their greedy business cronies. Hartsfield[1] serves as proof that power corrupts and that with adequate cashflow even corruption can appear to work. Sometimes.
What we don't know is how a chronic condition, one we had learned to live with, one that had gone into a very limited remission suddenly became critical. Why 2012? Why not 2006, ten years after the Olympics when the shine had gone all patina? Why not Y2K? If you believe the loudmouth who was pumping the TSPLOST nothing has been done on GA400 and I-285 since 1972, so why not the mid-eighties?
The answer is simple and unsurprising. The Feds are cutting back on the money they will dole out to Atlanta to prop up the Georgia DOT and other local interests. And we've become addicted to Fed Funding. Intentionally. And it's not like we have used these funds wisely. We've sqandered it to keep gasoline taxes artificially low, avoid applying impact fees to address the costs associated with development and hand out tax abatements like candy. That kind of hedonistic, drug addled thinking has put us in such a precarious position that the tiniest reduction in Fed Funds pushes us from chronic but manageable to critical, near death.
[1] @TOD we've not tacked on the "Jackson" as we're not sure whether that is about Jesse, Maynard, or Michael.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
