Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is an excellent point how the heaviest development patterns follow along Interstate routes because of the lack of a grid in the Atlanta area.
For people who measure sprawl patterns of large major metros, it really is astonishing that Atlanta is able to make other sprawling Sunbelt metros like Dallas, Houston and Los Angeles look almost very dense by comparison.
Though it should be noted that those lower-density development patterns and the meandering road network that fosters it is popular with a large portion of the metro Atlanta public.
The low-density development patterns may have its obvious drawbacks and be frowned upon by many, but many metro Atlantans and North Georgians like the low-density development patterns (and the heavily-wooded vegetation and rolling/hilly/mountainous terrain that fosters the low-density) because it is scenic to look at and because it is something that sets the Atlanta area apart from many large major metro area around the globe.
I agree that it would help if Atlanta could improve its road network to become more of a grid. But imposing a much more complete grid on the metro Atlanta/North Georgia landscape is something that has and will continue to prove difficult because the current setup of a road network that meanders through heavily-wooded rolling/hilly/mountainous terrain is something that is really popular with the public.
A lot of people move to the Atlanta area because of the overwhelming amount of green vegetation (on rolling/hilly/mountainous terrain) in both its urban and suburban/exurban neighborhoods.
And the areas that theoretically would be most in need of a gridded road pattern (like in Northside areas like Buckhead, North Atlanta, Sandy Springs, East Cobb, North Fulton, Dunwoody/North DeKalb, etc, where there are no real east-west cross-regional surface road alternatives to the I-285 Top End Perimeter) would be the most difficult (if not totally impossible) to impose a grid on because of the extremely high value of the residential real estate (and the extreme affluence of many of the residents) in those areas.
Your assertion that there are ways to improve/impose a grid outside of I-285 is a good one as there have been some moves (most notably by the governments of more heavily-populated OTP suburban and outer-suburban counties) to improve the surface road network by aligning major road junctions so that roads cross each other at 90-degree angles instead of at off-setting angles where vehicles may have to turn left or right onto a cross-road to continue straight ahead on the same road.
Also (like in the case of Cobb County's recent very long-awaited construction and completion of the "Windy-Mac Connector" to connect Windy Hill Road with Macland Road between Austell and Powder Springs roads in West Cobb) been efforts to fill-in missing parts of the grid with arterial connector roads, where politically possible OTP.
But it will continue to be almost completely impossible to fill in the road network grid ITP because of the continuing extreme public resistance to further road expansion there. It appears that Freedom Parkway (which opened in 2000) will have been the last new segment of roadway to be constructed ITP.
And a lot of this is why we should be concentrating as much development as possible in the core. The roads are there more than elsewhere, the transit is there. Generally speaking, Atlanta & ITP are best situated (though not well, perhaps) to absorb and grow to meet the populations of the future.
I would argue that Atlanta desperately needs to improve its grid. Those cities abroad (and Dallas and Houston and especially LA) have much higher densities.
Atlanta can't and its impossible and there's no point of crying over it.
D.C. And Boston are denser than them and they don't have a grid in fact London, Paris, Tokyo and etc don't have grids.
There are other factors there are different types of cities. Atlanta is like a sunbelt Boston or D.C. While Houston and Dallas are like smaller LA.
Atlanta needs to build up its edge cities and town centers connect them. And let the rest have there elbow room.
I would argue that London and Paris do in fact have a grid. Especially Paris. But they both have excellent grids compared to Atlanta.
If you really look it at on Google Maps, all the roads and streets connect everywhere. No, it's not the clean and neat squares and blocks and perfectly straight lines like Chicago, but the actual effect is still mostly the same in terms of connectivity and having lots of these different ways that you can get between any two given points.
This is opposed to Metro Atlanta, which disconnects/dead ends most roads and streets except for a few main thoroughfares, and therefore funnels all the metro's traffic flow onto those few roads and highways. This is our main transportation problem, I'd say. I'd argue that this lack of road connectivity is an even bigger issue than our lack of transit, and that's a big issue too.
For example, if I want to get from Vinings to Sandy Springs, 285 (at least most of the way) is my only option. There should be some other connecting roads running roughly parallel to that route. If we had more regular medium sized roads and connections going everywhere, then we could get all this gobs of local traffic off the interstates and main arterials.
In-town Atlanta has a similar problem. There are simply not enough streets. And half of the streets that exist, are dead-ends. If Peachtree closed, there would literally be no way to get in and out of half of Buckhead and Midtown, and the entire city would grind to a halt. Whereas in Paris or London, if one particular road or street were closed, they could easily adapt.
Agreed. The longer the state of Georgia keeps putting off the Northern Arc--hell, the entire outer loop--the worse it's going to be if they ever get around to building it. Personally I think the thing should be as far north as Ball Ground, Dawsonville, Gainesville, and the like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt
It'll never get built.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulch
Pretty much. I work with GDOT quite a bit and taking to planners there, it's about as dead as you can get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
There's no political will for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2
Eventually the residents of Forsyth or Cherokee will be tired of being strangled by traffic and get it built.
cq, Gulch and arjay make some excellent points about the Northern Arc which was officially cancelled by former Georgia governor Sonny Perdue immediately upon taking office back in 2003.
After the 2002 governor's race was decided in large part by the widespread unpopularity of the Outer Perimeter/Northern Arc concept and after the landslide defeat of the regional T-SPLOST referendum in 2012 in large part because of a growing (but incorrect) widespread public paranoia that the initiative was really just a secret way to fund a resurrected Northern Arc/Outer Perimeter, cq is right that the Northern Arc will most likely never be built, Gulch is right that the unpopular Northern Arc proposal is about as dead as anything can get and arjay is right that there is no political will (and/or political desire) to build a Northern Arc superhighway bypass north of Atlanta.
There particularly is no political desire to build the Northern Arc through Forsyth and Cherokee counties, two counties that successfully led the way in blocking the construction of the Outer Perimeter and Northern Arc proposals more than 15 years ago.
The political inability of Georgia state government (by of GDOT) to build an Outer Perimeter/Northern Arc superhighway north of Atlanta is why GDOT is proposing to widen Georgia Highway 20 instead of proposing the construction of a Northern Arc superhighway through Forsyth and Cherokee counties.
And while the proposed widening of GA 20 is a state-funded proposal, Forsyth County government has already taken steps to attempt to relieve traffic congestion by funding the widening of local arterial roads like Bethelview and Old Atlanta roads and funding the construction of new arterial roads like Mathis Airport Parkway/Windermere Parkway, Ronald Reagan Boulevard, Market Place Boulevard and Freedom Parkway.
The state has also already widened GA 141, parts of GA 20 east of GA 400 and is continuing to widen GA 20 east of GA 400.
There are also plans by Forsyth County government to finish widening Bethelview Road up to GA 20.
And a lot of this is why we should be concentrating as much development as possible in the core. The roads are there more than elsewhere, the transit is there. Generally speaking, Atlanta & ITP are best situated (though not well, perhaps) to absorb and grow to meet the populations of the future.
Concentrating more development within the core of the metro area where there is more transportation infrastructure (particularly transit) available to handle a larger population in the future has been what has been occurring more and more in recent years.
And with the way that the national and international marketplace is going, it appears that development will continue trending towards the core in Atlanta and many other large major metros.
But we also must keep in mind that in a free-market economy such as ours, there will continue to individual and corporate interests who will choose to build outside of the metro core to fulfill various wants and needs.
The very positive development for urban advocates is that the urban core option is a much more attractive than it was 20 years ago and continues to become more attractive in a 21st Century marketplace where an increasing value is being placed on density, mixed-use development and transit access.
I would argue that London and Paris do in fact have a grid. Especially Paris. But they both have excellent grids compared to Atlanta.
If you really look it at on Google Maps, all the roads and streets connect everywhere. No, it's not the clean and neat squares and blocks and perfectly straight lines like Chicago, but the actual effect is still mostly the same in terms of connectivity and having lots of these different ways that you can get between any two given points.
This is opposed to Metro Atlanta, which disconnects/dead ends most roads and streets except for a few main thoroughfares, and therefore funnels all the metro's traffic flow onto those few roads and highways. This is our main transportation problem, I'd say. I'd argue that this lack of road connectivity is an even bigger issue than our lack of transit, and that's a big issue too.
For example, if I want to get from Vinings to Sandy Springs, 285 (at least most of the way) is my only option. There should be some other connecting roads running roughly parallel to that route. If we had more regular medium sized roads and connections going everywhere, then we could get all this gobs of local traffic off the interstates and main arterials.
In-town Atlanta has a similar problem. There are simply not enough streets. And half of the streets that exist, are dead-ends. If Peachtree closed, there would literally be no way to get in and out of half of Buckhead and Midtown, and the entire city would grind to a halt. Whereas in Paris or London, if one particular road or street were closed, they could easily adapt.
Paris and London are not a grid there just dense. There the extreme example of a non grided dense city. Like wise Dallas and houston are grid but no where as continuously dense as LA or Chicago. Density add streets. Notice even in metro Atlanta a lot of mix use projects add new streets.
But I don't think you get it........ the transit is to make up for the lack of roads. You can redevelop Cumberland road network and add density but....... you can't do that for East cobb.
The problem is Atlanta over build develops in bad areas. but before I explain what I mean look at this
Clearly Boston and DC metro wise road network is not much better than Metro Atlanta
Boston
DC
Atlanta
The difference is they have a denser core and as well as denser connect suburbs.
This Frankfurt Germany it's metro is 5.6 million comparable to Atlanta.
Better zoning people living, working and having amenities near them reduce the need to travel. This take some of stress off major roads. As a result lesser roads are need to connect it's metro.
Remember me posting these it's following Boston, DC and etc because the way ATL is develop.
Notice most of these station communities follow right along the regional corridors.
DC has more edge cities than Atlanta. Sliver springs, crystal city, tysons corner, bethesda, and etc. The difference with Houston they are connect.
DC as well as Boston have more develop historic Satellite towns like Decatur and Marietta.
There no point of crying over that Atlanta is not build like DFW,
The Western Sunbelt cities are following LA,
The Eastern Sunbelt cities on the pedmont are built more like the Metros of the East Coast.
And they'll fill up just as quickly as they did with earlier widenings.
And transit will still be just discussed and never built?
Sounds about right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
