DEVELOPMENT:Cap Over Connector (versus, safety, best)

[cwkimbro]

The problem is this thread is a bit messed up on focus.

The report the OP is linking to is not about capping the connector if that is the intention. There has never really been a plan put forth to actually cap most of the connector, which would be astronomical in cost and engineering complications.

The plan linked to is a far cheaper plan to beautify the connector, which I full support. It will likely happen small steps at a time and if happening with funds from midtown and downtown CIDs mixed with GDOT funding whenever they do maintenance to existing infrastructure.

The closest things to a cap are in 3 places:
-The plan stresses adding a few additional East-west road connections over the connector; not a cap, but extra bridges.
-In midtown from just south of 10th St to just north of 14th street there is proposed pedestrian promenade. It would go over an off ramp, an emergency lane, and maybe part of one lane of traffic. It is meant to be a platform built on a cantilever from the side of Williams St. I support this idea. It will perpetually be an awkward place, somewhat polluted and noisy, but it will make Williams St far more appealing and more detached from view of the freeway. The area on the 5th street bridge is pretty nice, despite being on top of the highway and not a total cap.
-The existing bridges along the Grady Curve have proposed extensions. This is mainly just between Peachtreet St and Courtland St and Memorial Dr and MLK Dr. These are 'caps' just over that one small section and designed to connect the city in key locations. They are far more feasible individually.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by jsvh

The equivalent of billions was spent largely by property owners taxes to build the connector through downtown which in turn destroyed it and drained its life away. Drivers should be paying tolls on the connector that should go to making downtown properties right again by capping the connector. Or at least GDOT should be paying property taxes on the prime real estate they stole from downtown.

This isn't quite a fair thing to say either.

Atlanta was a far smaller city and parts of it were rather poor. There were even a few dirt roads in that city grid.

As much as freeways are a barrier, it also allowed the downtown core to become as big as it is. Most of what is built in the corridor are rebuilt buildings. Much of the track of land that became the connector were buildings likely to have been rebuilt by now.

While it harms in some ways, it gives back in others. It is also worth noting that the city wanted it back then. You say it drained the life, but it also gave it life in other ways.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

Despite the many undeveloped empty lots and relatively low land prices, billions must be spent to make this happen.

We can't afford not to do this.

i'm not saying this should be done now, or even in the next 15 years. but i believe that at a certain point, it would be wise to start studying a tunnelled downtown connector and I-20. if we start making the plans now, 20 years from now, when it is needed, we will have the plans and the funds to take on a project of this magnitude, rather than being caught off guard and playing catch up with infrastructure that is 30 years out of date— which is what we are doing now.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

i'm not saying this should be done now, or even in the next 15 years. but i believe that at a certain point, it would be wise to start studying a tunnelled downtown connector and I-20. if we start making the plans now, 20 years from now, when it is needed, we will have the plans and the funds to take on a project of this magnitude, rather than being caught off guard and playing catch up with infrastructure that is 30 years out of date— which is what we are doing now.

It would be far more cost-effective to shift people to alternate transportation modes rather than bury the highways. Maybe then we can cap and downsize the highways at the same time, because a smaller highway means a smaller cap, means a cheaper project.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

This isn't quite a fair thing to say either.

Atlanta was a far smaller city and parts of it were rather poor. There were even a few dirt roads in that city grid.

As much as freeways are a barrier, it also allowed the downtown core to become as big as it is. Most of what is built in the corridor are rebuilt buildings. Much of the track of land that became the connector were buildings likely to have been rebuilt by now.

While it harms in some ways, it gives back in others. It is also worth noting that the city wanted it back then. You say it drained the life, but it also gave it life in other ways.

Downtown Atlanta would be stronger if the connector was never built. It is a net negative for the core as it gives citizens and business a discount to leave the core. Basically no large international downtowns have 12+ lane highways that slice through the center of them like it does downtown. In fact many of the largest urban cores have don't have highways at all. London, Manhattan, Paris all have no highways that cross their core, only highways on the fringes. And almost any major international city you do see a highway near the core, it is paid for with tolls.

[magnetar]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

The problem is this thread is a bit messed up on focus.

The report the OP is linking to is not about capping the connector if that is the intention. There has never really been a plan put forth to actually cap most of the connector, which would be astronomical in cost and engineering complications.

The plan linked to is a far cheaper plan to beautify the connector, which I full support. It will likely happen small steps at a time and if happening with funds from midtown and downtown CIDs mixed with GDOT funding whenever they do maintenance to existing infrastructure.

This point seems to keep getting lost; I think the idea of tunneling the entire freeway is a more fun strawman for people to knock down.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Downtown Atlanta would be stronger if the connector was never built. It is a net negative for the core as it gives citizens and business a discount to leave the core. Basically no large international downtowns have 12+ lane highways that slice through the center of them like it does downtown. In fact many of the largest urban cores have don't have highways at all.

This is a case of hindsight being 20/20. It was (very wrongly) assumed in the late 1940s that the Connector would act primarily as an inbound highway for people to access the CBD, and instead we got the suburban growth explosion over the next 50 years. Also, at the time of it's construction the Connector was only 4-6 lanes wide, GDOT's "Freeing the Freeways" program doubled it to the current width in the 1980s (another misguided example of "fixing" congestion by adding capacity).

London, Manhattan, Paris all have no highways that cross their core, only highways on the fringes. And almost any major international city you do see a highway near the core, it is paid for with tolls.

In those cases, they almost did. If Robert Moses had his way, Manhattan would've been cleaved by two crosstown expressways and large chunks of SoHo, TriBeCa, Little Italy, and Midtown would've been wiped out.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Downtown Atlanta would be stronger if the connector was never built. It is a net negative for the core as it gives citizens and business a discount to leave the core. Basically no large international downtowns have 12+ lane highways that slice through the center of them like it does downtown. In fact many of the largest urban cores have don't have highways at all. London, Manhattan, Paris all have no highways that cross their core, only highways on the fringes. And almost any major international city you do see a highway near the core, it is paid for with tolls.

Not necessarily, how can you have a strong city without the means to get to it? Just saying the connector weakened the city is only telling a part of the story. If you wanted to not build the connector, you would have had to build other access highways around the city, or provide other means in order for the city to grow as much as it did.

[dreDREb13]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

I recall a GT architecture professor tried that theme for students to address the Connector like a "river" for a class project. A huge stretch as an expressway has pretty much zero aesthetic appeal and spews toxic gases. At least a river has more of a calming effect while a highway is more stressful. Might as well as try to sell HJIA as a noisy roaring "sea harbor". The control tower and searchlight are like a romantic seaside lighthouse.

Yeah, true, it's certainly not aesthetic or calming like a river. But I guess my main point was that we're stuck with it, pretty much. But then, I guess not many people are itching to build on the side of a highway. I guess there really is nothing you can do to make the area nice or desirable.

[magnetar]

For those who dream: Hamburg is burying the Autobahn and putting parks on top - Vox

The project, which is called the Hamburger Deckel and is projected to cost $800 million, comes after 20 years of lobbying from a local residents' initiative called "Ohne Dach ist Krach" (German for "No Roof, Too Much Racket"). Burying the highway is a practical way to meet a city noise abatement ordinance passed in 2005, as the sound barriers built in most places (including virtually everywhere in the US) can only cut down on noise by a factor of about half.

The tunnel project also has some other benefits: in covering what will be an eight-lane freeway, it'll provide a substantial amount of new parkland, along with space to build a neighborhood of 1700 homes. At its northern end, the new park will also link existing parkland, establishing a new greenbelt. Work is starting this year, and it's projected to be finished in 2022.

$800m. I'll take this instead of rebuilding the 285 interchange.