does atlanta need a "big dig"? (Auburn, Boston: sales, foreclosure)
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.
fair enough— i was being diplomatic, figuring that if it included that eastside tunnel they'd be more likely to plan for it. the route has been proposed again and again by the GDOT since the 60s, it seems like someone there really wants it built in one form or another. i'm not really for it myself because of the reasons listed above but if it meant getting rid of the downtown connector, that'd be another story.
I guarantee you that no one at GDOT is taking that proposal seriously.
I like the idea of doing it but we would need to build out our transit network first so people would have better alternatives to get downtown/midtown during the traffic cluster****. Also some people who try transit during the construction period might decide they like it and become permanent riders.
Also you could take the chance to improve the road, perhaps tolled express lanes, whose revenue could go towards paying off the project.
fair enough— i was being diplomatic, figuring that if it included that eastside tunnel they'd be more likely to plan for it. the route has been proposed again and again by the GDOT since the 60s, it seems like someone there really wants it built in one form or another. i'm not really for it myself because of the reasons listed above but if it meant getting rid of the downtown connector, that'd be another story.
You don't have to be diplomatic with GDOT anymore as the public has pretty much imposed their will on them with the rejection of many major large-scale roadbuilding initiatives over the past 15 years or so.
The public has (sometimes angrily and derisively) rejected many of GDOT's large-scale roadbuilding initiatives over that time, including:
...The Outer Perimeter in the late 1990's, the Northern Arc in 2002;
...The original plans for the I-75/I-575 Northwest Corridor in 2005-06 which would have expanded the I-75 roadway to as many as 25 lanes;
...The revived plans for the Northern Arc in 2007 which would have built the unpopular road even further out above Lake Lanier and through the Southern Appalachians, something that was sure to be a big hit with environmentalists, landowners and transit advocates on all sides of the political and ideological spectrum;
...The aforementioned plans to build tolled tunnels under Intown East Atlanta, a place that is a hotbed of anti-road expansion activity and a place that started the current anti-road expansion movement that is gaining steam throughout Metro Atlanta and North Georgia with the Intown Freeway Revolts of the late 1960's and early 1970's in which protesters literally chained themselves to trees and sat in the way of bulldozers;
...The T-SPLOST referendum of 2012 which many residents, both ITP liberals and OTP conservatives perceived to be the biggest publicly-funded roadbuilding initiative yet and feared was a way to resurrect the unpopular Northern Arc because of two large-scale road construction projects slated for T-SPLOST funding in Bartow County (the 411-75 Connector as mentioned below) and in Gwinnett County (the Sugarloaf Parkway Extension which was proposed to be constructed in the right-of-way of the abandoned Northern Arc);
...The 411-75 Connector outside of Cartersville which many perceived to be a resurrection of the much-hated Northern Arc and which GDOT has spent more money defending in court over the past 20-30 years than the road originally would have cost to construct.
Because of these sometimes angry and derisive public rejections of their large-scale road expansion proposals and the public relations debacles that often preceded them, GDOT isn't necessarily as "gung-ho" anymore about building new roads and freeways and is much more careful these days about the road-expansion projects that they propose and the way that they present them to a public that is not always the most receptive to large-scale road expansion proposals, especially if the large-scale road expansion proposal is perceived to make traffic worse.
Also, things are such that the urban political and social climate inside of I-285 is heading towards capping or tunneling existing freeways anyways (starting with the Downtown Connector) as the public increasing desires a higher quality-of-living inside of the city.
...And what better way to increase an urban area's quality-of-living than to bury an unsightly and unattractive freeway and replace it with much-needed green space and transit and pedestrian-friendly real estate built to human-scale.
Your ideas of also burying I-20 through the city and burying I-75/85 south of I-20 are just (much-needed) icing on the cake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulch
I guarantee you that no one at GDOT is taking that proposal seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StAubin
I like the idea of doing it but we would need to build out our transit network first so people would have better alternatives to get downtown/midtown during the traffic cluster****. Also some people who try transit during the construction period might decide they like it and become permanent riders.
That's an excellent point...A point that cannot be emphasized enough.
One cannot emphasize enough how much a STRONG mass transit option is needed for when the road network is not necessarily completely passable (during construction projects, emergencies, inclement weather, special events, and even during morning and evening rush hours, etc).
Quote:
Originally Posted by StAubin
Also you could take the chance to improve the road, perhaps tolled express lanes, whose revenue could go towards paying off the project.
That's another excellent suggestion and kind of a foreshadowing of where things are already headed when it comes to transportation financing as transportation think-tanks and government agencies both nationally and locally are already seriously discussing the idea of financing the maintenance and operations of major roads by placing tolls on them, not just on express lanes, but on ALL LANES of superhighways as the fuel tax continues to decrease in funding effectiveness.
Those discussions by transportation think-tank and government agencies of financing new and existing roads by placing tolls on them also include utilizing congestion pricing by making the tolls that they place on major roads variable tolls that rise with the amount of traffic on the road so that people (particularly those in single-occupant vehicles) are encouraged to use mass transit during peak times and so that the lanes that are built or rebuilt don't fill up with traffic and become impassable through an area of existing development and limited capacity where no additional lanes can be built.
This has got to be the most dumbest idea ever. 75/85 has over 250k cars per day. Why in the heck would someone want all those cars to push into downtown/midtown streets? This make as much since as closing the top end and making all those cars exit off near the Perimeter Mall. That would be a disaster. Traffic is only bad on the connector for 6 out of 24 hours. Those other cities do not have as many cars per day as the connector. Ask the people in LA if they would want to close the 405 and flush that traffic out to the side streets and they would like you were crazy. Hell traffic is already backed up when one or two lanes on closed off. Imagine all the additional traffic that this would cause
This has got to be the most dumbest idea ever. 75/85 has over 250k cars per day. Why in the heck would someone want all those cars to push into downtown/midtown streets? This make as much since as closing the top end and making all those cars exit off near the Perimeter Mall. That would be a disaster. Traffic is only bad on the connector for 6 out of 24 hours. Those other cities do not have as many cars per day as the connector. Ask the people in LA if they would want to close the 405 and flush that traffic out to the side streets and they would like you were crazy. Hell traffic is already backed up when one or two lanes on closed off. Imagine all the additional traffic that this would cause
Traffic wouldn't really be an issue; Boston has managed fine after the Big Dig. But the biggest difference is that their's was an elevated highway while our's is sunken--and the cost is quite expensive.
Originally Posted by gerrythesnake This has got to be the most dumbest idea ever. 75/85 has over 250k cars per day. Why in the heck would someone want all those cars to push into downtown/midtown streets? This make as much since as closing the top end and making all those cars exit off near the Perimeter Mall. That would be a disaster. Traffic is only bad on the connector for 6 out of 24 hours. Those other cities do not have as many cars per day as the connector. Ask the people in LA if they would want to close the 405 and flush that traffic out to the side streets and they would like you were crazy. Hell traffic is already backed up when one or two lanes on closed off. Imagine all the additional traffic that this would cause
You are correct that the reconstruction of such an important piece of transportation infrastructure through the heart of a major metropolitan area will be a major disruptor of traffic, as was the case during the Freeing-the-Freeways reconstruction and expansion project of the 1980's, and as has been the case in other major metro areas with major road reconstruction projects (...like the I-10 West Katy Freeway reconstruction project of the mid-late 2000's in Houston; or the reconstruction of I-95 in Northern Virginia outside of DC during the 1990's and 2000's; or the reconstruction of I-5 through Orange County, CA outside of Los Angeles in the early-mid 2000's; or the seemingly-endless reconstructions of the I-90/I-94 Expressway through Chicago during the 1990's and 2000's...major freeway reconstructions cause major traffic disruptions in major metro areas).
Which is why it is absolutely critical that the Atlanta metro region improve, upgrade and expand the availability of its transit infrastructure before proceeding forth with such massive and potentially disruptive but very necessary road infrastructure reconstruction projects...so that people will still be able to get around while such critically-important transportation infrastructure reconstruction and improvement projects are in progress.
One should also keep-in-mind that busy major roads like the Downtown Connector will still have most, if not all, of the same exits and entrances and will remain open and accessible to traffic during and after the reconstruction of the road into a tunneled superhighway below ground.
...It's just that the surface right-of-way of the Downtown Connector which is currently occupied as roadway space, will be available for use as linear greenspace and for the construction of high-density mixed-use real estate development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
Traffic wouldn't really be an issue; Boston has managed fine after the Big Dig. But the biggest difference is that their's was an elevated highway while our's is sunken--and the cost is quite expensive.
That's a good point that the cost of tunneling a major roadway like the Downtown Connector will be quite expensive.
...But considering the benefits of reclaiming surface land for use as public greenspace and high-density mixed-use real estate development, as well as the reconnection of urban neighborhoods divided and adversely-affected by the Connector, the cost of the project will be well worth it.
The project will be well worth the cost particularly since such a project can be paid for without attempting to use dwindling existing public funds by utilizing revenues from:
...User fees (tolls);
...Private investment (for-profit term-leases of the tolled tunnel and its high revenue-yielding surface real estate assets out to private investors/operators);
...Tax Increment Financing/Value Capture (portions of property tax revenues from the new development that pops up along the surface right-of-way that has been vacated by the tunneled road).
Last edited by Born 2 Roll; 11-03-2013 at 03:26 PM..
That's a good point that the cost of tunneling a major roadway like the Downtown Connector will be quite expensive.
...But considering the benefits of reclaiming surface land for use as public greenspace and high-density mixed-use real estate development, as well as the reconnection of urban neighborhoods divided and adversely-affected by the Connector, the cost of the project will be well worth it.
The project will be well worth the cost particularly since such a project can be paid for without attempting to use dwindling existing public funds by utilizing revenues from:
...User fees (tolls);
...Private investment (for-profit term-leases of the tolled tunnel and its high revenue-yielding surface real estate assets out to private investors/operators);
...Tax Increment Financing/Value Capture (portions of property tax revenues from the new development that pops up along the surface right-of-way that has been vacated by the tunneled road).
I agree that the cost would be worth it, particularly if we were to avoid Boston's mistakes, but I simply don't see it happening.
I agree that the cost would be worth it, particularly if we were to avoid Boston's mistakes, but I simply don't see it happening.
I don't see it happening right now, but I can definitely see it happening long term. There are other projects that we would have to complete first, specifically transit expansion that would help offset the traffic mess caused by construction.
Traffic wouldn't really be an issue; Boston has managed fine after the Big Dig. But the biggest difference is that their's was an elevated highway while our's is sunken--and the cost is quite expensive.
You serious?
One lane that is blocked backs up traffic for miles. Could you imagine how far traffic will be backed up with 7-8 lanes of traffic being pushed into a two lane street? I can't believe you actually think this idea would work. So if I drive to the southside now I will have to stop at 20 red lights in the city verses driving straight through the city…Come on
One lane that is blocked backs up traffic for miles. Could you imagine how far traffic will be backed up with 7-8 lanes of traffic being pushed into a two lane street? I can't believe you actually think this idea would work. So if I drive to the southside now I will have to stop at 20 red lights in the city verses driving straight through the city…Come on
That's only during construction. Once the project is completed the highway would be fully functioning.
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.
