Quote:
Originally Posted by dante2308
Thank you cabasse. I'm from Jamaica and I have been trying to keep up a Jamaica thread in this forum, but unfortunately it seems that there is not enough interest despite the number of projects going up in my homeland.
Anyhow, I understand the anti-highway sentiment. I really think that we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater though. Without the multitude highways, there really wouldn't be any way that Atlanta would have gotten to be such a regional powerhouse. Without the highways, Atlanta wouldn't even have been considered for all these wonderful projects we see filling the forums. The highways were cut through communities and were somewhat politically and racially motivated, I know, but that doesn't necessarily mean that highways themselves area all bad.
I think people tend to reach for the past nostalgically when they see the problems that new technologies cause instead of trying to integrate them better into our society. We have highways and we have cars and they are on some levels better than the trains and foot travel that came before them. We should find a way to reach our goals without sacrificing too much of something else.
For example, I think cars should be run electrically and charged by an alternative energy power grid. That way, we don't have to deal with the pollution they cause and our crippling oil dependence. The technology is there and developing and wouldn't incur any real loss.
I think that we should continue to favor air travel over high speed rail. I'm an aerospace major so I may be biased, but aircraft are really a form of mass transit when it comes down to it. A train will most likely run on fossil fuels and slow commute times to any destination outside of 500 miles even if the infrastructure were put in place. Aircraft run on kerosene and will swiften our economy by connecting the broad scale of our nation on a scale of a few hours. There is a cost incurred by the airports and the burning of kerosene, but that is mitigated by the improving efficiency of each new generation of aircraft and the economic benefit the create. More economy means more tax revenue to pay for the services you and I like. Of course, for trips under 500 miles, where feasible, there should be alternatives like HSR should be available.
In no way am I specifically anti-transit or pro-highway. I'm pro Atlanta and pro human society. I would like the best for everyone if possible and if that means a mix of several options, then we should explore everything. Even the highways and malls have their purposes.
I also think that the center of the city should be focused on, but definitely not the only place we focus on. Most people do not live in the center so developments should not be reserved for Atlanta proper. As traffic becomes more and more horrid, suburbanites will be less likely to make the trip into the city and will demand, and receive, amenities in their bedroom communities. Instead of fighting it, we should try to make new development as positive as possible for the communities they impact. We should encourage an Atlanta Region that is not a city but a systems of cities as it is already becoming. That support means new transit alternatives connecting the nodes including transit, roads, and good zoning regulations.
|
I agree with many of your points (actually, I don't--I just think I like the way you argue them
), though I don't know that the desire to centralize is so much nostalgic as it
seems (note italics) to be "proven" (that is, we see lots of evidence of great places that are centralized--we don't see as much evidence of places that are decentralized but still considered great). In the case of great places that are, arguably, decentralized (e.g., Paris, London, Buenos Aires, Barcelona, even New York) they are so incredibly bound together with mass transit, that they can pull it off. I don't know that a city like Atlanta could be very interesting with a number of sattelite cities that are connected mostly by freeways. It would seem to engender a lot of second-rate institutions rather than a handful of really good ones (I'm thinking museums, symphonies, public libraries, even shopping districts, etc.).
You say that not everyone lives in Atlanta proper so development shouldn't concentrate there (and I understand your point, of course) but it's a bit chicken-and-egg -- if there is not a critical mass of infrastructure, why shouldn't people keep living farther and farther away? You seem to be saying "embrace sprawl" and that's probably a very pragmatic stance if the choice is unbridled sprawl vs. planned sprawl (and it may well be--that train may have left the station, no pun intended
). But I think we have an opportunity to create a more Chicago-like dynamic with full-service surburbia but a kick-ass central area.
Finally, I won't argue with a aerospace engineer, but I thought planes were a LOT more guilty of producing green-house gases than trains.
