Removing interstates ITP (Atlanta: rent, neighborhoods, to buy)

[bryantm3]

But first— why?

Because these places are not built for this type of heavy, fast traffic. You have way too many auto commuters trying to get from point A to point B. As an intown auto commuter, for me the interstates serve no purpose. Because they are too wide, too dangerous, have way too many people who have been on the road for way too long. It's not like getting on the interstate way outside the city. You go from zero to psycho when you turn on the ramp.

Second, the interstates break up the neighborhoods too badly. Outside the perimeter, generally the devlopment is built around the interstate. But once you get past a certain point ITP, you have neighborhoods that are broken in two by the interstate. West End, Grant Park, Midtown and Summerhill are all cut in two by the interstate. You have people crossing under and over the interstate on foot and bicycle constantly.

Lastly, the interstate is fueling car-oriented development in places where there are already too many cars. Every new skyscraper in midtown has a 10 story parking podium. We're getting huge parking decks and lots with every new development. We need to turn the ship around on cars ITP by planning, so we don't end up introducing draconian stuff like congestion zone pricing for cars.

Well anyway, those are my reasons. It makes sense to me to remove those interstates and replace them with boulevards or parkways like Freedom Parkway. Or the original city streets that used to be there. Something it's safe to walk and bike around. Yes it'll cause congestion. But in the long run Atlanta will be a nicer place to live.

[Need4Camaro]

We're too far deep into car-dependent society to make any meaningful impact by making a single adjustment (I.E. removing Interstates), simply put.. ..you need a feasible alternative in place before you can remove a major artery. The reason congestion tolling for example works in places like London is because they already have an excellent transit network.

In Atlanta's case, any transit feasibility pretty much ends once you leave Fulton County. Add onto the fact that the suburban counties are not dense enough or built in any meaningful way to make mass-transit practical when considering cost vs feasibility. They are very sprawly and unwalkable with no grid and that makes it difficult to commute to transit stations.

There is the argument that those folks shouldn't choose to live so far out but that is moot. Those suburban areas are collectively incorporated into the MSA and CSA and have largely contributed to Atlanta's progression likewise Atlanta has contributed to their progression as well.

The interstates that serve the Downtown Area will have to stay for any meaningful length of time...

That stated.. ..what should be changed is how the interstates themselves navigate the central region. There should be capping and tunneling through residential nodes that would ordinarily be walkable neighborhoods as to avoid interupting large sects of neighborhoods. So it would be like the interstate isn't even there, similar to the Big Dig project, except the Intertstate would come up to breathe here and there and then go sub-surface again when crossing into another neighborhood. Would be expensive, but wouldn't need to be done all at once.

[bryantm3]

I just feel like we're eating the cost here more than the people OTP. It's affecting our lives. We should have a reasonable amount of car access in the city. But these 12, 15 lane highways were a mistake.

[MichiganderTexan]

lol what

[aslowdodge]

If you made access to the city less, wouldn’t demand to live in the city rise.
Then wouldn’t cost to buy or rent go up? Wouldn’t congestion in the city become unbearable?

[clevergirl67]

Originally Posted by MichiganderTexan

lol what

Right? I guess they don't understand those interstates were built outside the city many years ago and now the suburban sprawl has overtaken them. Lawd have mercy make it stop.

[Need4Camaro]

True about the post above. Technically 'everyone' gets the short end of the stick when a major freeway (or any major transportation infrastructure project) gets pushed into their backyard. It should be noted that even ruralists are highly adverse to major freeways in their hood. You can see the effects of that in North Georgia when it came to the Northern Arc and how adversely they opposed it to the decree it even overturned the states politics. The same happens in Texas (a state that has a stigma of being freeway laden). When you leave the major cities, ruralists are highly adverse to major freeways coming through their ranches to the decree that they have even threatened surveyors with gun threats. SH 130 is a prime example of this. If you have used the road before you will notice that it has exceptionally high mile markers and exit numbers. This is because it was supposed to be an alternative to I-35 from San Antonio all the way to DFW but only the leg between Seguin and Austin got built and this is because Ranches strongly apposed the road construction. The same for a suburban city called Manor TX just east of Austin where U.S. 290 was supposed to be upgraded into a tollroad but the local inhabitants did not want the road to disconnect their neighborhoods so it never got built.. unfortunately now they really need the road.

What is different about the central area of major business districts is:
- They were built in an era where the construction of Interstates was highly pioneered
- They were also built in an era where the general society and public was ignorant to the effects it would have in the urban fabric of core areas
- They were built in an era where individualistic transportation aka ' the automobile' was becoming a strong fad which did untold damage to existing transit systems leaving many to go bankrupt or be purchased by government subsidies leaving their quality of service to pretty much rot and become seen as lower class transportation by the general public so the construction of the roads did not recieve much opposition except from the people that they would directly impact.
- There are simply put more people impacted in a general area because they are built in higher density areas... but don't mistake this to assume that everyone outside the city isn't impacted or does not oppose them, they definitely do.. there just isn't as strong of a push to 'correct' the problem.

When the general interstate system was conceived, Dwight Eisenhower's original plan was to avoid the major business districts at all costs because he knew of the social dislocation effects they would cause. He instead intended for Central Areas to be served by toll roads and transit but Congress saw the potential financial prosperity they would bring to core areas and pushed the plans through to incorporate them into the city.

Right now, tearing down the interstates would cause too much logistical damage and may even escalate to social tensions as well. It would be better to find a happy compromise between Urbanists and Suburbanists. Tunneling and Capping should go a long way toward that.

[Need4Camaro]

Speaking of which, what is the progress with the Stitch project?

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by clevergirl67

Right? I guess they don't understand those interstates were built outside the city many years ago and now the suburban sprawl has overtaken them. Lawd have mercy make it stop.

The ITP interstates were very much plowed through development.

[KSM0984]

How about getting better lighting on the interstates? So many dead areas that are dark and dangerous to drive in.