It's only fair that Jameson, who after all has become a known entity in time and no longer toils anonymously, has the marquee for his response to yesterday's post: I'm willing to take the bait. Maybe we'll both learn something.
Longtime blog readers will note that Blogger comments are not searchable. That's why it's useful on occasion to life comments to the marquee.
Discussion?
---
"So, what's the disconnect? Is the biggest difference between us our respective interpretations of a Greek philosopher who has been dead for more than 2,000 years? Is it shallower? Deeper than that? It isn't about me, and it isn't about you. Right? So, tell me: What's it all about?"
Roger, it is everything above and more. The sad thing is even if I try and explain it to you I know you will not read and listen to what I’m attempting to convey. Some of the fault lies with me, I wish I could express things to your satisfaction, but that is where NAC’s hypocrisy and double standards begin and gets worse from there. I standby what I said last night, and the crazy thing is that understanding Socrates will explain a lot of what it is all about.
A lot of people read this blog, but what most people are unaware of are the things said outside of their view. You play victim here but you are the assailant. You list all the things you invest, but are they more than what others have risked? Saying that your investments are any greater than mine or anyone else’s is egotistical. Maybe you’ve just had more time than others. When you list the things that you are apart of all I see is how your personality, just being there, would cause others not to participate, and that is why being a “Gadfly” is unjust. It is to your advantage to keep it this way, not for the advantage of the whole.
Why does it matter? It matters because people do what to see New Albany improve, but when there is someone being a “Gadfly” you cause injustice. You poison the well for those who want to see people work together. The “disappointment” lies with the fact that you do have the ability to be a greater contribution than you are now, but I don’t think that you have ever given it a chance. Either you’re scared to, for the reasons I said last night, or you don’t want to, for the reasons I said last night. Mark suggested to me that I should go and read previous NAC postings, I did, and even from the first year’s post I read where the paper black balled you for being nasty. You didn’t try 5yrs ago and you're not trying now.
It is easy to find support in this homogeneous blog but when people attempt to engage with a different point of view it is met with hypocritical double standards like the ones you find on the Shawn Hannity Radio Show. Like there, people don’t want to listen to other perspectives, and I know you are not listening here, because if you were you will find out that we agree on more than we disagree. Even from the first time we met you didn’t listen you assumed things. You missed the conversation that Greg Roberts and I had about two-way traffic, and what he found out is that we agreed with each other more than we differed but you never even tried to listen to what I was saying, and even today I don’t think you are. Maybe NAC already has all the answers but if it is this way with me it would be like this for others. A bias group's idea will not stand up to the group who’s idea is made up of different temperaments, talents, and convictions.
Today will be history and tomorrow will be the present. Maybe this post is your attempt to begin anew; actions will speak louder than words.
Jameson,
ReplyDeleteYour knowledge of the local history is still flawed. I've had "major" disagreements with Jeff, Randy, Roger, Lloyd, etc here many times. We've discussed, cussed, and argued. We still listen to each other. We still debate topics. As for as I know, we still like each other. Just because you are not aware of it, doesn't make it any less true.
Same as you being wrong about me assigning the name Potty Police. Same as you being wrong about the two way street issue never having been publicized and discussed. When your "error" was pointed out to you, you said that you not a had a personal audience with the Mayor(or something along those lines). No matter that it was the Tribune several times. That it was part of England's platform. Never mind that England discussed it at the library during the open meeting where Mr. Hubbard took questions and later so did England. Same as...
There is too much assuming--perhaps from all sides.
"those who want to see people work together."
ReplyDeleteWork together for what? To build or tear down? To progress or to regress?
This really comes down, once again, to facts. NAC shines a harsh light on injustice. I think the writer is asking for mercy, not justice.
I like the title.
ReplyDeleteRoger, I am your father.
No!!!
Mark, it doesn't matter who called who the potty police first it matters how you use it now and the only way I have seen it used is in a condescending way. If this site shines a harsh light it is because it is marred by its hypocrisy and double standards.
Potty Police, Copperhead, Little Stevie, or Cappuccino, why go there? That is what the Socrates argument is about; Rogers's blog and articles are counterintuitive. His neurosis that makes him appreciated by some but loathed by others is detrimental to the things we share together. If we support something I'm thrown together with you and that is not how I do things and I will speak out against it. It is like how people assume that Roger, Randy, and others are together with Doug.
I would disagree with you about any discussions over two-way traffic. What I said was not everybody went to Doug's campaign rallies. Obama talked about health care during his campaign but there still needs to be debate. The paper published that Spring St. would become two-way but I started the debate. Even Randy acknowledged it, telling the council that night of the vote, that he would support a public hearing. I continue to hear the mention of two-way traffic for Spring St. but where is the public forum? We are talking about the busiest street in Floyd County. I engaged here on NAC but was shutout because of anonymity. Like I said then at the council meeting I willing to listen but no one else was other than Greg Roberts. It was brought up on Shirley's blog and when the discussion finally switched to facts I presented mine but you all tucked tail and ran. The personal attacks are all I ever seen or read.
There is a big difference, Mark, between disagreeing with someone in a discussion and character assassinating them. Your analogy is with people who you have friendships with. I can say that I have discussed things with you on Shirley's blog but I haven't seen much here between people with different points of view, other than Daniel.
So, wrong? I wouldn't go that far; I think that is still up for discussion.
Do I need my English teacher Randy?
ReplyDelete"Work together for what? To build or tear down? To progress or to regress?"
All of the above and more but regress.
I think it is great that you have public forums at Destinations. But your criticism of Dan for doing the same thing is hypocritical. And yes, I know they are conducted differently but it is hypocritical to condemn him for trying.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to a two-way street discussion on NAC:
ReplyDelete"The paper published that Spring St. would become two-way but I started the debate."
RememberCharlemagne, Feb. 23, 2010
Also in response to a two-way street discussion on NAC:
"This discussion is nothing new. If you are a lifelong resident of New Albany you would have encountered this topic at least once in your lifetime."
Maury K. Goldberg, Dec. 27, 2005
Return of two-way streets in NA: Might this constitute an idea that unites?
So it goes.
Now rude and impertinent of Bluegill to suggest that ideas predated Charlemagne's reign, not to mention gaze.
ReplyDeleteIdeas are meant to be burned at the stake, drawn, quartered and served (with mustard) atop a bed of flavorful iceberg lettuce picked by underpaid immigrants in California, and then shipped here.
No wonder we're reviled by the wee ones.
Jameson,
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your recollection and if I can find the time I will research that.
Be that as it may, you totally negelected that it was in the Tribune and that the Mayor talked about in the forum(not a campaign rally)at the library before the election. I'm sure it was on his website. For someone so informed, how did you miss it? What kind of research did you do on the candidates for mayor before you voted? Any?
What is rude is thinking that I was unaware of any "talk".
ReplyDeleteWhat is rude is not reading and therefore listening, like I have been saying.
"Obama talked about health care during his campaign but there still needs to be debate. The paper published that Spring St. would become two-way but I started the debate."
Gardner never brought it to a vote. Doug was trying. There is a big difference.
Can you see the difference between the two?
Over the past year has there been any committee meeting over any change, who was on the committee, that discussed the two-way traffic change under England?
Where and what are their findings?
Before I spoke about any of it I asked the Mayor’s staff for the information that they were basing their conclusions, surprisingly they had nothing. The paper offered what they had and it was nothing.
I read what the paper label as their endorsement for two-way traffic. The 1997 Ferguson report made no recommendations and even recommended to the city that they would want to do an independent study if any changes would be considered.
Reading the Ferguson report the reader gets the impression that they were asked to look at such a plan.
The only thing they said is that drivers that are not familiar with the traffic pattern can become confused.
That's it? Nothing more?
What is stupid is any driver not driving in a place they are familiar with can become confused in any city.
From there in 07 DNA comes to the conclusion that all roads need to be two-way traffic. I asked, "Based on what research?"
Is that it? That is what you are going off of.
I will gladly eat crow if a plan is presented other than opinion. I will gladly support two-way traffic on Spring St. if good research makes the suggestion.
Jeff's posting wasn't rude but Roger's...
Assume indeed.
There's also James G-A-R-N-E-R, the previous mayor.
ReplyDeleteJust saying ... it's a favored Price-ist strategem to intentionally garble names.
I will gladly support two-way traffic on Spring St. if good research makes the suggestion.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to the definition of "good" research.
One more thing before I get back to work: Over at VotP, JB was congratulated for his postings at NAC.
ReplyDeleteThey were comments, and I transformed them into postings on successive days so that (a) they'd be searchable, and (b) there'd be a better chance of a discussion developing. No more, no less.
And still I get slagged for it being all about me. You just can't reach some folks, can you?
Thanks R,
ReplyDeleteNo, your efforts have not gone unnoticed these past few days has been actual engagement but it can be better.
I'm not good with names or spelling.
The one good thing for me is posting here will make me better.
I love to be proven wrong because it will lead to the path of right.
I'm curious as to the definition of "good" research
ReplyDeleteYou are right there is a broad category that could be considered good research.
The highest being impartial empirical research the lowest what was given to me to justify the change.
When was the last time a traffic count was done on Spring?
What percent is morning commute?
What percent is evening commute?
07 DAPP said 12,000 daily commuters out of New Albany and a few 1,000 commuters into New Albany.
Are there any alternative ideas?
Every road and city is different should all roads be treated the same.
Has anyone look at Ellettsville, IN
South Bend, IN has an interesting traffic plan with highway 37 running through its downtown. One that I think could be modified for New Albany.
Federal Farmer brought up Bloomington, IN as an example of a one-way system.
You were the one making accusations of the "hiding" of 2-way street platform, not me. Just pointing out that it wasn't hidden. Has nothing to do with the research on the merits of 2 way streets or anything else. You stated at the time, it was a double secret plot. Sinister, if you will.
ReplyDeleteDon't think it will work. Think that there needs to be hearings. I've got no problem with any of that.
Hidden?
ReplyDeleteDouble Secret Plot?
I never stated anything of the sort.
I don't know if you’re being serious.
I'm being very serious, although paraphrasing.
ReplyDeleteIt's been all most a year ago and I have a pretty good memory about things but I don't ever remember thinking or saying those things.
ReplyDeleteI do remember playing up my disagreement but that's only because it was the ninth hour. I don't think what I said that night had much bearing on the amendment.
Why didn't the council table the ordinance and set up a committee for discussion?
Maybe I did say those things, maybe that is why Jeff said I was “ignorant” or maybe you guys were so overwhelmed with my oratory display that you became confused.
Actually it was a resolution
ReplyDelete"Over the past couple of decades, Vancouver, Washington, has spent millions of dollars trying to revitalize its downtown, and especially the area around Main Street that used to be the primary commercial center. Just how much the city has spent isn’t easy to determine. But it’s been an ambitious program. Vancouver has totally refurbished a downtown park, subsidized condos and apartment buildings overlooking it and built a new downtown Hilton hotel.
ReplyDeleteSome of these investments have been successful, but they did next to nothing for Main Street itself. Through most of this decade, the street remained about as dreary as ever. Then, a year ago, the city council tried a new strategy. Rather than wait for the $14 million more in state and federal money it was planning to spend on projects on and around Main Street, it opted for something much simpler. It painted yellow lines in the middle of the road, took down some signs and put up others, and installed some new traffic lights. In other words, it took a one-way street and opened it up to two-way traffic."
an extended excerpt from Alan Ehrenhalt, December 2009.
"good" research.
"A key strategy to renewing downtown historic neighborhoods is converting one-way streets to two-way streets. Oppressive two-or-more lane downtown one-way streets help kill neighborhoods and small businesses. We need to convert these into two-way streets with parking, trees, bike lanes to calm traffic and make neighborhoods more livable for families, young urban pioneers, and the elderly...
ReplyDeleteOne-way streets pose many threats for pedestrian and motorist safety, make city streets seem less safe, disproportionately impact poor and minority neighborhoods, hurt downtown businesses, reduce the property values of homes, and negatively impact the environment.
On Vine Street in Cincinnati, 40 percent of the businesses closed after conversion from a two-way to a one-way street. Well-known Louisville restaurateur Peng Looi chose not to locate a new restaurant in downtown Newport because of the presence of one-way streets and the negative impact it would have on his business and storefront exposure.
If streets are converted to two-way, the traffic will slow down, giving greater balance of traffic flow in the morning and afternoon. Slower traffic increases people activity on and around the street, and enables pedestrians and motorists to safely interact with the streetscape and activity around them.
The cost of going from one-way to two-way streets would easily be recaptured in increased taxes on homes and business growth. This would reinforce movement to downtown, and also would move people to invest in these neighborhoods as places to live."
-Excerpt from the Newport HOPE VI Evaluation by the Center for Sustainable Urban Neighborhoods (Gilderbloom, Hanka, Lasley, 2008)
More "good research" just in case someone says that Vancouver is not a comparable example.
2-way streets have never been an agenda item at city council. I'm unclear how there could have been proposals, debate, or "first to mention" the topic, other than for some to hurl threats from a council chair.
ReplyDeleteThis is nothing that I haven't heard before.
ReplyDeleteIn past posting I brought up the fact the US DOT never makes the suggestion that two-way is an effective means to achieve the over-all objective. It will take time but I will relocate it.
The US DOT even research European studies to find examples of solutions from Europe.
Funny thing is last year when all of this was happening the BBC reported how two Paris mayor's changed important streets to one-way but in opposite directions. I wonder if they ever got it resolved.
Good research would be some analysis done for New Albany's unique situation.
Regarding Randy's example:
Main St., State St., and even Vincennes are all two-way. All of them need redeveloping.
What your example would imply is the opposite
The problem I have with the two-way concept is you are classifying all the streets the same when they are not the same.
I think we can come up with a better plan than what has been discussed in the past.
Randy, the 10 million bond resolution was not only for paving but two-way conversion.
ReplyDelete6.4 was for paving streets and the rest for conversion.
Do you remember you brought that fact up, that it was not on the agenda but the 10 million was be considered for more. Just like a lot of money appropriated is used for more then what is on the agenda.
Roger, even made the point that New Albany has no town square. I think he called it an island.
ReplyDeleteIf you use the town square as an example the square is always one-way.
Let me ask you this. Were you supposed to get a personal letter stating that the mayor was considering that, or anything else for that matter? How do you know what is going on now? You know now, because you are going to meetings. You are reading the blogs. You ask questions. You are engaged. Those are all good things and apparently you were not that engaged locally until the past year or so. That's not a crime. I wasn't engaged either until 4 or 5 years ago.
ReplyDeleteI know that I can't write this clear enough. When you wrote that not everyone in New Albany went to an England rally that says to me that there was no other publicity. That's not true. It was in the paper and England addressed it at the library meeting. All of that was two years before you were "surprised". The average citizen is probably more engaged just prior to an election. Would you agree with that?
It doesn't make you a bad person that you weren't aware until then. However, it doesn't make those who were aware earlier, "conspirators" either.
Zampano, I would disagree with you about the safety of one-way over two-way and some other things. We can get into it if you like.
ReplyDeleteI would like to add that I was never against Pearl, Market, Bank, and others changing to two-way. I am not against all of these streets having bike lanes, flowers, trees or any of those things you mentioned. But Spring, Main, and to some degree Elm are unique in their purpose.
Mainly because they are links to and from New Albany and therefore are different.
Zampano, you mentioned that you had your children on Spring St. using the bike lanes. Do you drive down Charlestown Rd., Grantline Rd, or Louis and Clark Parkway with your children?
Would it not be safer to use an alternative street with less traffic?
Mark, you are correct I didn't attend England's meetings or the library meetings but to say I was unaware of what was being proposed for the traffic pattern downtown I would disagree.
ReplyDeleteI don't know of any conspiracy’s but I do know I am not the only one to feel the way that I do. A few people even wrote into the paper expressing the same concern but less then my articles.
The only conspiracy is the one you are trying to create and the fact NFL games are rigged.
Mark, was the library meeting only about two-way traffic?
ReplyDeleteThe paper made mention of two-way traffic as if it was going to happen there was never an article talking about the city council holding a committee on the proposed change to the streets.
Louisville has done it with the arena project so should New Albany.
Yes, Mark I would agree with a lot of what you said but I didn't just jumped in. After I read about it in the paper I started to research it and by going downtown and asking the Mayor's office for information if found out they had none but what I talked about before.
You also forgot that the Mayor was on State of Affairs talking about it when Randy called in. "I hope you can hear me Mayor because of all the traffic."
And yes I think I should get a personal letter.
Two-way street reclamation is only a council decision to the extent that they are asked to fund it, to which they can say yes or no.
ReplyDeleteWhether we ultimately return to two-way streets isn't a council decision. A council committee could make a recommendation but their approval is not required.
RemChar,
ReplyDeletePerhaps it would be safer to use some street besides Spring, but since I live on Spring, I find it rather difficult to avoid. And you are not disagreeing with me, as I stated before, that was an excerpt from the Center for Sustainable Urban Neighborhoods(UofL) study of Newport, KY (2008).
There is a plethora of statistical data available about the safety of two-way streets over one-way as well as solid empirical evidence that supports all the findings from the Newport study as well as many, many others. However, convincing you of this is not one of my top priorities at the moment. Go to the Planetizen Website, or the Journal of the American Planning Association, or read the book "Traffic" by Tom Vanderbilt, or anything by John Gilderbloom and find it for yourself.
After that, go out and ask any of the people walking around the E. Spring St. neighborhood on any given day what they think (I have found that this task is most effective when I am actually walking around the neighborhood myself).
Or don't do any of this. I care very little. But at least finding something substantive to support what you say.
http://www.kipda.org/files/PDF/Transportation_Division/Information/NAInnerCityGridStudy.pdf
ReplyDeleteLook what you get when you when you Google New Albany Indiana Downtown Traffic Study.
This information was presented at a public meeting that was held at the Calumet Club in 2007.
Sorry my link didn't work. Just use that Google search and it will come up at the top.
ReplyDeleteNew Albany Indiana Downtown Traffic Study
ReplyDeleteI think this will work.
Thanks all this is what I'm asking for.
ReplyDeleteI would love for Elm to become two way and use traffic calming measures, including a stop light at 10th St. I've seen too many accidents and near accidents by people who seem to think Elm is some sort of drag strip. Same with Spring. I don't want New Albany to be thought of as some place to get through on your way to somewhere else.
ReplyDeleteGuys is this supposed to help my arguement.
ReplyDeleteThe Ex Sum is pertty much everything I'm been saying.
The pics they use are straight from US DOT that I sited in my articles to the Trib your own study says what I been saying.
Did any one notice that the portion of Spring St East of 5th and West of Vinn was second least of the lowest in actidents
Anybody watching PBS great show on American History with a vocus about African American soldiers.
ReplyDeleteTheir version of Pie Jesu is great
They didn't even give respondents that option of choosing two-way as an alternative to slowing down traffic.
ReplyDeleteWho was the lone person to say no to the question do you think streets should be turned to two-way.
ReplyDeleteAnd you fault Dan Coffey for having bias meetings?
At least Dan gets more than 24 people.
The city did the complete opposite of what is recommended by reducing lane with on Spring St.
ReplyDeleteThe used to be three tight lanes and now we have two much wider lanes.
width
ReplyDelete"unny thing is last year when all of this was happening the BBC reported how two Paris mayor's changed important streets to one-way but in opposite directions. I wonder if they ever got it resolved."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pps.org/info/newsletter/june2005/paris
This is from 2005, the mayor is the same since 2001 and he's eliminating one-way streets. From the article...
"That's not all. Delanoë is also consciously making it more difficult for people to drive in Paris. The city's "red axes," dedicated in the 1980s for express traffic on one-way boulevards with no on-street parking, are slowly being turned back into narrower, slower, two-way streets with bike lanes."
Maybe you were talking about Paris, Texas? Europe is light years ahead of the majority of America when it comes to these issues. Public transportation, making bike lanes available, walkable cities, etc..
I'm also reading that Paris and London, on the one way streets that they have, will allow two way bicycle lanes to improve their bike routes.
ReplyDeleteAnd another article found about two-way conversions..
http://www.governing.com/column/return-two-way-street
Hell, Bayern -- them YOO-Ropeans don't even believe in the right God! We're light years ahead of them when it comes to misplaced priorities.
ReplyDeleteJameson: The "one" person who objected during the true town hall meeting about 2-way streets lives on 5th Street, north of Elm. Not one house on that street has off-street parking. It is narrower than 6th Street between Elm and Spring and the folks there can't park if that very narrow street became 2-way. The respondent came out in fear that her street might become 2-way, which has never been considered by anyone at all.
ReplyDeleteNow, you are back to zero people who objected to the idea who came out to an announced meeting at the Calumet Club to study extensive satellite and aerial photos, diagrams, and statistical charts.
That meeting is a far cry from what we witnessed from Mr. Coffey last week. That meeting provided information, included significant question time, and produced a result that clearly took into account the input of the public. More importantly, the meeting included experts on the relevant topics.
Further, the city allowed us to post all of those charts and diagrams in our giant picture windows where 24 hours a day for several weeks, anyone who wished to could walk by and study the accident rates, the proposed solutions, etc. And anyone who desired to could come in and pick up a complete copy of every document provided at that meeting.
Even those people who consider books "icky" could review the charts, diagrams, and photos without ever once having to sully themselves with progressive cooties.
anyone who wished to could walk by and study the accident rates
ReplyDeleteHell fire, Kojak -- there's the problem! You goldarned pergessives want us to WALK to see these maps and signs. What about us elderly fixed income non walkers, huh? Shouldn't it be about us first?
For the record, the city council has never taken up the 2-way street issue. Out of personal spite and gross ignorance and unreasoned fear of bogeyman expense, a few have dug in their heels and declared opposition, but it has never been considred by council.
ReplyDeleteNothing in the funding discussion you reference talked about 2-way reversion. Fearmongers limited the commitment only on suspicion that it might actually improve this city (which they know it will), but the mayor has never made such a proposal.
He did promise it. He has not fulfilled that promise, and I fault him for that. But please do not rewrite history. YOU may have attended that meeting suspecting that it involved reversion to historic patterns of traffic flow, but your suspicions aren't based on fact.
With all the conspiracy talk, if you believed it, don't you think the mayor might have dropped a hint to me? After all, to hear it told in council chambers, such a reversion would only be done to "benefit one business." Funny how so many residents and businesses and property owners came out in full-throated support for action then to calm traffic and restore our streets to their designed flows.
I, unlike most I know, hold out a faint hope that you will shed the ideological and paranoid knee-jerk reactionism to oppose anything a progressive supports. For that faint optimism I am seen as the Candide in this playlet.
Shall I abandon that faint hope that when confronted with the overwhelming weight of the evidence you might join, for once, in a progressive vision? Shall I assume that your entire agenda is regression and political pot-shotting?
I tell you this, sir: the pot-shots are wasted efforts. Truth will out. The one diminished by obstinancy won't be the victim. It will be the shooter.
Jameson,
ReplyDeleteBe careful how you manipulate the data. Out of 501 crashes, 143 occurred on Spring between Scribner and Vincennes, the highest percentage in downtown. Second was Elm between Scribner and Vincennes with 131. These 2 streets accounted for 55% of all downtown crashes during the study period. Out of the 6 fatalities in the last 8 years, 4 occurred on Spring. Spring ranked
3rd in the number of crashes (37) that occurred between 5th & Vincennes behind Main (52) and Elm (51), not the 2nd lowest overall.
For the traffic volume to capacity (V/C)ratio, all downtown streets were below capacity except Spring, which had a ratio of .86 east of Scribner and .81 between 4th and Vincennes (below 1 means over capacity).
The fact that two-way streets were not listed as traffic calming measures has solely to do with the way the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) defines these measures and nothing more. The study states the widely accepted fact that "some advantages of two-way streets are slower travel speeds, reduced traffic loads, and better access to businesses and residential areas."
Keep in mind that KIPDA studies are not as concerned with improving pedestrian access and the overall quality of neighborhoods as much as they are with moving cars through the MSA in the fastest and most efficient way possible. That is why they devoted exactly one paragraph and one table to pedestrian and bicycle access in the study. That is also why they are concerned that two-way streets may result in "a loss of vehicular capacity" since New Albany is a major thoroughfare for commuters in the MSA.
Guess what? For many of us who live downtown, a loss of vehicular capacity is exactly what we want. That is why my hope is not that two-way streets will exist as a traffic-calming measure but rather, a traffic eliminating/deterring measure that helps sustain livable, economically productive neighborhoods.
Andy brought up a great point. Why should downtown New Albany serve as a conduit for commuters speeding through our streets on their way to somewhere else? These people are not invested in downtown, do not contribute to downtown (financially or otherwise), see our communities not for any value, but only as another obstacle to bypass, and do nothing but pollute our air, congest our streets, and endanger pedestrian traffic. All the while serving as a major impediment to the overall development of NA as a whole.
So what if they were forced to take 265 to Louisville, adding a few more minutes to their commute. Somebody once said "there are no solutions, only trade-offs." I see the potential of downtown as being well worth it.
I responded to you Randy last night but I don't see it here.
ReplyDeleteIt was a good thing too I used sole instead of soul
zampano, manipulate the data?
v/c above 1 is over capacity and below only Scriber off of 64 was the problem and that relates to why Elm and Spring at Scriber was to high 1.1 or something like that.
you are only reading what you want to hear. There is more that they offer why one-way is better.
I understand why everyone wants traffic to slow down I'm not against that but just like this report would suggest there are better way than two-way on Spring.
"Guess what? For many of us who live downtown, a loss of vehicular capacity is exactly what we want. That is why my hope is not that two-way streets will exist as a traffic-calming measure but rather, a traffic eliminating/deterring measure that helps sustain livable, economically productive neighborhoods."
This is the argument I heard when Carl came a spoke at a neighborhood association meeting and I told him there it was a bad idea.
For Andy all he would have to do is look at the study it said only 1700 cars would change route out of 17,000 daily drivers. They said this was an estimate because those drivers may already be avoiding Spring.
Second if the Grocery Store was to be located on Spring those people you want gone are the very people who would stop for food out of convenience.
Got go talk later
I did not misinterpret the data, I just wrote it down wrong (I was a little exhausted). All streets were well below capacity except the areas I mentioned on Spring and the short section you mentioned.
ReplyDeleteThe main point is that I cannot think of another residential street in the MSA that serves as a major commuter conduit the way Spring does.
I cannot see why you are so opposed to this idea. I would still encourage you to get out and walk around the neighborhood during peak traffic hours. Try to glean the perspective of someone who has children living on Spring. Or a business on Spring. Or any perspective other than someone who craves gated communities with private parking.
Like I said before, one-way may be better when it comes to moving cars through the MSA at the highest rate of speed, but when it comes to saving neighborhoods, all data concludes that two-way is better. That is why traffic engineers should also be forced to study housing and community development.
ReplyDeleteThe problem seems to stem from the fact that we have extremely different objectives and goals.
Why is it a "bad idea?" You are prone to disagree, but rarely state what it is you disagree with, specifically. Which leads me to conclude that you have some personal resentment against the people who favor certain measures. That may be legitimate, who knows? But to cling to those resentments so tightly that they cloud rational thought is damaging to the discussion and community as a whole. Sort of like putting restrictions on what can and should be discussed.
Zampano, that may have been the best statement yet of the issue involved here. We've seen it so many times before. I call it the Coffey Syndrome.
ReplyDeleteWhich leads me to conclude that you have some personal resentment against the people who favor certain measures.
It's really strange to me that conservatives (and yes, I include many Democrats in this county) are supposed to be pro-business, yet a strategy of two way streets that has been proven in study after study as a way of increasing business and helping downtown areas is treated as such a bad idea.
ReplyDeleteJameson, what purpose does a one-way Spring, Elm or Market street serve? You say it won't make any difference and it's a bad idea. Please tell me why it's a good idea to keep things the way they are...other than giving people a straight shot (at high rates of speed, as the study showed) through our town? Have you tried to cross Spring Street on foot towards downtown? I do it nearly every day walking to work and, at times, it can be a daunting task with all the cars who seem to think of Spring as a dragstrip.
Zampano,
ReplyDeleteI understand about being tired I frequently make those kinds of mistakes.
Look I all about reaching a better understanding it is hard to do that on a blog. I am very serious about my involvement with this idea I don't take it lightly.
Roger, what do you think should there be another thread?
Personally I think the news about the schools is more important and should carry our focus.
I will gladly continue with a point-by-point brake down of each point made.
Got go to Library for soup comp talk later.
Before I leave
ReplyDeleteZampano,
I am not trying to avoid answering your question but there are over 4 people addressing me. Difficult to respond to everything.
Let's start with a beginning