ATLANTA TRANSIT (Marta, Beltline, Peachtree Streetcar, LovJoy Commuter, etc...)

[MarketsWork]

Originally Posted by Terminus

Good point. And Tech is responsible for probably doing more to harm the historic fabric than the highway did. Just look at all the streets, structures, and traditional urbanism that have been destroyed since that aerial was taken.

I think you're right about Georgia Tech, which could also play a huge role in the solution. The heart of Tech's campus is inviolate, but North Avenue (to some extent) and 10th Street (especially) offer future development possibilities in which Tech could play the leading role. If I'm not mistaken, Tech owns a good portion of the student ghetto neighborhood at the northern edge of its campus. As demand builds, I wonder if that area might be developed on the model of Tech Square?

[RobMidtowner]

Originally Posted by Terminus

Good point. And Tech is responsible for probably doing more to harm the historic fabric than the highway did. Just look at all the streets, structures, and traditional urbanism that have been destroyed since that aerial was taken.

How can you say that Tech is responsible for doing harm to the historical fabric more than the highway? Being an alum and seeing the planning efforts they've made and are still making to reach out to the surrounding community, I find it hard to believe your statement. I don't know all of Tech's history so please tell me what motivated this statement. Thanks.

[MarketsWork]

Originally Posted by smArTaLlone

Are you seriously going to compare the grand avenues of Paris with the downtown connector?

Of course not! But none were built on idle pastures, and all were forced upon their present sites through eminent domain (or royal edict) and displaced former residents. Surgeries happen, and scars heal.

[RobMidtowner]

Originally Posted by MarketsWork

I think the solution is somewhere in between, since the Downtown Connector is here to stay. There is no Utopia in real life, and budget constraints will always favor the possible over the wished for, so all major initiatives come down to compromises. I believe that eliminating the Connector is a misguided dream -- and it's just not going to happen. 95+% is a fairly decent landslide, and makes for a settled argument.

Atlanta has long since healed over the old wounds caused by the Connector, and like places all over the world have done throughout history, it has since become another place entirely. The old neighborhoods to which Andrea refers no longer exist in their old forms and boundaries, and Humpty Dumpty couldn't be "re-connected" if you tore out the freeway today. I am sure the grand avenues of Paris split a few old neighborhoods when they were built, but I never hear anyone call for their removal. The Downtown Connector predates most current Atlantans and an overwhelming number of forumers, so it is less an intrusion than it is now an integral part of Atlanta. It will stay, so what to do?

I think the 5th Street Bridge is a model for compromise which can provide wide, attractive and inviting east-west pedestrian flow (not just vehicular traffice) across our river. We're not going to bury the whole Connector, since that would be prohibitively expensive to build and to maintain. But a few more well-placed 5th Street-type bridges might be the best way to connect the two banks and encourage broad east-west avenues. In my opinion, 14th Street would be the place to start.

Well a few reasons I could think of to justify covering it (at least in pieces) would be for noise reduction and to create more parks. Noise reduction is an issue surrounding any interstate and the state has recognized this and put noise barriers at several locations. There aren't any noise reduction measures currently for the connector right now (except a few on the Grady curve I think) so this could be used to justify noise barriers at the least. Also, Atlanta has one of the lowest amount of parks/greenspace among major cities. Since there isn't any large tracts of undeveloped land (except a few along the beltline), this is an opportunity to create more greenspace. If the city was to buy land to create more greenspace, it would be expensive as well. Granted this whole idea is somewhat of a pipedream and would take several years to occur, I think projects like the 5th street bridge are going in that direction. I think the best locations for any bridge/park extensions would be North Ave to 14th.

[Terminus]

Originally Posted by RobMidtowner

How can you say that Tech is responsible for doing harm to the historical fabric more than the highway? Being an alum and seeing the planning efforts they've made and are still making to reach out to the surrounding community, I find it hard to believe your statement. I don't know all of Tech's history so please tell me what motivated this statement. Thanks.

Easy, just look at the aerial. They have removed streets, buildings, and neighborhoods as they've expanded. Visit 10th Street today and you'll see a continuation of the trend, as the last Victorian homes on its south side were just torn down.

I didn't say this to blast Tech, but simply state they they have historically done just as much to destroy Atlanta's traditional urbanism as they highways did. The same can be said for other institutions as well, which, until recently, tended to a take a fortress like approach to their facilities.

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by MarketsWork

I think the solution is somewhere in between, since the Downtown Connector is here to stay. There is no Utopia in real life, and budget constraints will always favor the possible over the wished for, so all major initiatives come down to compromises. I believe that eliminating the Connector is a misguided dream -- and it's just not going to happen. 95+% is a fairly decent landslide, and makes for a settled argument.

Oh, I think it's entirely possible to get rid of the connector. It's just a bunch of concrete -- a dinosaur from a different era, when fossil fuels were cheap and believed to be almost limitless. There's every reason to be thinking about smarter ways to make our cities work, and restructuring 1950's style monoliths into intelligent urban roadways should be near the top of the list.

These are long term projects, but the future gets here before you know it. Mayor Franklin has pointed out that the Beltline should be viewed as a 100 year project, and people involved with the Streetcar tell me it will be 25-30 years before we see streetcars running the length of Peachtree. I'd wager that if you put a substantial crew to work on reconfiguring the connector, you'd see amazing progress in 24-36 months.

One of the lessons we can learn from the mistakes of the past is that when it comes to urban transportation one size does not fit all. Freeways may be exactly what people want in the relatively lightly populated suburban areas. But they make no sense in the denser urban core, which is more suited to a sophisticated network of urban streets and mass transit. (How many people who actually live in Atlanta, for instance, find it necessary to use a 16-lane limited access highway to get around town?)

A good way to conceptualize it is to take Joey's map from a page or two back, and overlay a few things like the MARTA system, the Beltline, the Peachtree Streetcar, an upgraded bus system and an improved array of well-connected surface streets and arterial roads. Keep the freeways on the periphery and in the suburbs and you've got a vastly improved environment.

[dante2308]

Cabasse:

it's obvious that she's suggesting a return to the previous, and more well conneced grid.

Yes, and that is unreasonable. I don't see where you don't get that moving the people off the highway and onto the surface streets is not a reasonable change. It is like moving people off of the roads and onto the sidewalks... sorry its cute, but nonfunctional as hell.

very few people find the connector to be a thing of beauty... it's utilitarian at best, but like a jet engine always on the verge of exploding due to bad design and planning.

No, it isn't meant to be beautiful. Its a road. Roads are there to get people from point A to B. Utilitarian doesn't mean it's like a jet engine about to explode unless you believe the highway is about to somehow about destroy something... It has a utility and because of it's utility, it spurred the growth of the region, not the death of it...

they can certainly give up their cars when heading to the core of the region, or get off a currently bottlenecked freeway and instead make their route on an improved grid network as mentioned above.

Bottlenecked? 90% of the time, the highway is clear and free and still, during rush hour, better than truing to use surface streets to make a 35+ mile trip. If it was better to use surface streets, they would. Its better anyhow to have alternatives. Surface streets are good for short trips and bad for long ones. Most people in Atlanta are making long ones. Just because some people live in Midtown and don't need the highway as much doesn't mean that the highway is somehow a "dinosaur" as Andrea put it.

how many people living in the cbd of a city really need to get around an entire metro at a moments notice? sure you might, but there are plenty of others who follow a set pattern of commuting and traveling. it seems as if you are basing your arguments on a general pro or anti-freeway stance

BUSINESSES! My God man. If you own a business, you want to be able to pool human resources from the entire Atlanta market efficiently as well as tap into that market for clientel.

If the connector disappeared, businesses would simply move north closer to the highways leaving the CBD more desolate than it already is... Not to mention killing the booming Midtown. Now if you want wonderful surface streets enveloping a shell of a city, great. But the only thing that makes the core of the city more desirable than some edge cities is connectivity to the whole region.

You may be forgetting that the center of the city is moving north closer to the people and centering in on highway intersections like 400/285 and 285/75...

[CityFan]

Originally Posted by MarketsWork

Of course not! But none were built on idle pastures, and all were forced upon their present sites through eminent domain (or royal edict) and displaced former residents. Surgeries happen, and scars heal.

It's so true. No pain, no gain. Nothing in our society can make everybody happy, even the best legislative decision is opposed by some people. Eminet domain has to be in place for good changes for our society. Believe or not, our predessors did research and planning to come up wht the solution helping Atlanta to grow. I personally appreciate their work to bring Atlanta to this point which the city is recognized internationally. It used to be one street town. Should it have stayed that way, it would have been forgotten by the world. Just check out the city of Shanghai, China which was pretty well known in 30's and 40's and then declined beyond 50's till 90's. After rebuilding its infrustructures, the city has been booming like mushroom. Today it's even more advanced than New York. What they had to do was displaced a lot of residents to make way for new developments.

[RobMidtowner]

Originally Posted by Terminus

Easy, just look at the aerial. They have removed streets, buildings, and neighborhoods as they've expanded. Visit 10th Street today and you'll see a continuation of the trend, as the last Victorian homes on its south side were just torn down.

I didn't say this to blast Tech, but simply state they they have historically done just as much to destroy Atlanta's traditional urbanism as they highways did. The same can be said for other institutions as well, which, until recently, tended to a take a fortress like approach to their facilities.

Well maybe Tech has absorbed some streets, buildings, and neighborhoods as they've expanded, but from a desirability standpoint, I don't think the campus has done as much damage to the urban fabric as the highway. Call me crazy but I would rather live in a house next to Tech's campus than live next to the noisy, smelly interstate. If anything, I believe the areas surrounding Tech are currently empty because of the mass exodus caused by the interstate and the general abandonment of the city. And Tech has tried to spur redevelopment by expanding. I am probably not as well versed in Tech/Atlanta history as yourself, but I respectfully disagree.

[dante2308]

One of the lessons we can learn from the mistakes of the past is that when it comes to urban transportation one size does not fit all.

This quote from Andrea sums it up. We shouldn't force people to use surface streets or highways or mass transit. We should give them options and that means we build on to our transportation network instead of trying to destroy pieces of it.

[Teshadoh]

Originally Posted by Terminus

Easy, just look at the aerial. They have removed streets, buildings, and neighborhoods as they've expanded. Visit 10th Street today and you'll see a continuation of the trend, as the last Victorian homes on its south side were just torn down.

I didn't say this to blast Tech, but simply state they they have historically done just as much to destroy Atlanta's traditional urbanism as they highways did. The same can be said for other institutions as well, which, until recently, tended to a take a fortress like approach to their facilities.

Not to mention entire neighborhoods that have been destroyed in order for Georgia Tech's awkward circular road & postmodern campus to be built in the early/mid 1900's. But - this is just to note what has happened in the past & will likely happen in the future. Colleges are typically built in urban environments & have very little choice not to expand into an existing built environment. But how well they expand & blend is what matters - I do love certain aspects of Georgia Tech's campus, but I think that college has done one of the worst jobs of building a campus that blends with the surrounding urban environment.

As bad as the downtown connector splits Atlanta, on the other side of Georgia Tech - Northside & the awful highway interchange is just as bad, including the west side of North Avenue.

But - U of Colorado in Boulder isn't that much better, or most colleges in the nation.

[AubieTurtle]

Originally Posted by dante2308

This quote from Andrea sums it up. We shouldn't force people to use surface streets or highways or mass transit. We should give them options and that means we build on to our transportation network instead of trying to destroy pieces of it.

Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black. -Henry Ford

Any driver can choose to drive on any type of road he or she wants, as long as it is a megahighway. -Guess who

[RobMidtowner]

Originally Posted by dante2308

Bottlenecked? 90% of the time, the highway is clear and free and still, during rush hour, better than truing to use surface streets to make a 35+ mile trip.

Ok, this is just wrong man, so you're saying that the downtown connector is only congested for 2.4 hours per day on average?!?!?! Please, that's just the congestion in the AM peak alone. From an engineering standpoint, even with that much delay the highway is operating with insufficient capacity and therefore needs to be improved. And since widening is pretty much out of the question, something needs to be done because the status quo isn't working anymore. That's why these "crazy" ideas are coming out, because we've hit the wall and need to start thinking about totally new concepts that would work with our traffic situation. I think the idea presented by Joey is one of several ideas that should be looked at and seriously studied because the currently choked interstate keeps forcing businesses to sprawl further out. If Atlanta were the best option, then businesses wouldn't locate anywhere but in the CBD. Maybe you're ok with an unsustainable and costly pattern of development, but I want something better than that. We've reached a point where we need to be open to any ideas that could help our situation, even if that means limiting driving within the city. Other big cities have exorbitant tolls to keep people from driving into the city (London for example). Bottom line is something needs to be done to increase the capacity of the city's transportation infrastructure. Just because you disagree with an idea doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered.

[dante2308]

Originally Posted by RobMidtowner

Ok, this is just wrong man, so you're saying that the downtown connector is only congested for 2.4 hours per day on average?!?!?! Please, that's just the congestion in the AM peak alone. From an engineering standpoint, even with that much delay the highway is operating with insufficient capacity and therefore needs to be improved. And since widening is pretty much out of the question, something needs to be done because the status quo isn't working anymore. That's why these "crazy" ideas are coming out, because we've hit the wall and need to start thinking about totally new concepts that would work with our traffic situation. I think the idea presented by Joey is one of several ideas that should be looked at and seriously studied because the currently choked interstate keeps forcing businesses to sprawl further out. If Atlanta were the best option, then businesses wouldn't locate anywhere but in the CBD. Maybe you're ok with an unsustainable and costly pattern of development, but I want something better than that. We've reached a point where we need to be open to any ideas that could help our situation, even if that means limiting driving within the city. Other big cities have exorbitant tolls to keep people from driving into the city (London for example). Bottom line is something needs to be done to increase the capacity of the city's transportation infrastructure. Just because you disagree with an idea doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered.

Peak rush hour is about 2.4 hours long a day. People do tend to move along the connector during most of rush hour, just not at 60-80mph, more like 35-50mph which is acceptable. I think we should consider many options as well. My first set of posts were all about mass transit, which I think should be implemented to compliment the overall transportation infrastructure.

The CBD realistically extends up through Midtown and has attracted a fair share of the development since the highway's construction.

What I said was:

But the only thing that makes the core of the city more desirable than some edge cities is connectivity to the whole region.

Note the word some. Meaning that some people develop in the CBD instead of the edge cities. Just because the CBD is more desirable than some other sites does not imply that everyone develops only there.

Everything else you said we are agreement in.

Suggestions I've made:

Focus on core and non core business districts for transportation improvements.

Get off ground commuter rail, but only use it as a capacity improvement alternative (don't expect it to clear the highways or reduce sprawl).

Covering the highway is fine, but only when we have explored other more effective options first and we can sit back on an effective transportation infrastructure and excess resources.

Make mass transit more reasonable in areas outside the perimeter by encouraging urbanistic centers.

Improve the old systems and mitigate their negative effects. ex. streetscape improvements, business partnerships, regional campaigns for improvement.

Protect our assets to ensure sustained growth including the downtown connector.

Try to accommodate everyone who commutes including the south side of the city which commutes primarily to the north side of the city.

[dante2308]

I am not unbending btw. After this long argument, I think I can see why some would encourage the dismantling of the highway, but I maintain that it is still much too useful to get rid of just yet. Perhaps the alternatives should be in place first. We can't forget the south side of the city's dependance on commuting through the connector. 285 is not feasible to try to get from College Park to Buckhead for example. Neither are the surface roads.

[CityFan]

Originally Posted by dante2308

I am not unbending btw. After this long argument, I think I can see why some would encourage the dismantling of the highway, but I maintain that it is still much too useful to get rid of just yet. Perhaps the alternatives should be in place first.

There is no way we can get rid of downtown connector even when there is any alternative, as long as people are using passenger cars as means of transportation. Some day we use up all fossil fuels and don't have any fuel subtitutes, then we don't drive cars and downdown connector will be idle. The removal of it can be revisited.

[dante2308]

Originally Posted by CityFan

There is no way we can get rid of downtown connector even when there is any alternative, as long as people are using passenger cars as means of transportation. Some day we use up all fossil fuels and don't have any fuel subtitutes, then we don't drive cars and downdown connector will be idle. The removal of it can be revisited.

True, but an alternative to the connector though could be another highway... which I probably would not support.

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by RobMidtowner

From an engineering standpoint, even with that much delay the highway is operating with insufficient capacity and therefore needs to be improved. And since widening is pretty much out of the question, something needs to be done because the status quo isn't working anymore. That's why these "crazy" ideas are coming out, because we've hit the wall and need to start thinking about totally new concepts that would work with our traffic situation.

Rob, I'm quoting you but only for context. The problem with "interstate thinking" within an urban area is that it utterly ignores the real issue, which is connectivity. You increase capacity in a city by adding connectivity, so that the traffic can become diffuse throughout the network of streets and transit.
Limited access highways operate on the assumption that everyone is going to (or coming from) a relative handful of destinations. That's okay in rural or suburban areas, but it's incompatible with high density urban areas. By definition, limited access freeways attempt to move traffic by squishing everyone into a few parallel, adjacent lanes. Adding lanes to an interstate is like trying to fix a clogged pipe by getting a bigger pipe without removing the clog.

In addition to all the other negatives we've discussed regarding the downtown connector, perhaps the most obvious objection is simply that it's an utter failure from the standpoint of effectively moving traffic. It's a 2-3 hour nightmare twice a day, and isn't a whole lot better the rest of the time. Once again, limited access freeways should end at the periphery of urban areas, and let a network of efficient urban streets, mass transit and pedestrian routes take over from there.

[dante2308]

Curious. Andrea, you and I both know that we don't have an extensive grid network and our current street pattern is insufficent. Are you saying we create one? Wouldn't that be very destructive in the short run?

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by dante2308

285 is not feasible to try to get from College Park to Buckhead for example. Neither are the surface roads.

What's wrong with simply taking Northside Drive straight through West End and continuing right down Lee Street/Main Street to College Park? That's the way we used to go to Woodward.

Better yet, what about taking the train from either the Lenox, Buckhead or Lindbergh stations directly to the College Park station?

And actually, if you do want to take I-285, it's not much difference at all from taking the connector through downtown.