More Highway Widening (Atlanta, Dallas, Washington: approval, vehicle, education)

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by peterkhoury

I agree with jsvh! This stupid widening of these highways is only paving the way for more outsiders to move here thus
beginning more and more congested!!

First of all...more "outsiders"? You can't grow your area without "outsiders". And if you don't want more "outsiders" moving here, I assume you're fighting Amazon moving here, Apple moving here, or any other large company presence.

I won't repeat my arguments regarding density and whatnot.

The area along highway 140 has never been a high traffic area, so why the need to widen it!!!!

Are you talking about highway 140 up in Adairsville? That's nearly 50 miles outside the perimeter, so few "outsiders" are going to move there just because there's an extra lane on the highway. If it's not a high-traffic area, then a few more "outsiders" added to the mix isn't going to make it more congested. The road carries about 10,000 vehicles per day, and is the connection between I-75 and the main Lowe's distribution center. I would absolutely want that road to be 4-lane.

[jsvh]

Point is, automotive infrastructure is not able to handle large volumes of people efficiently.

Yes, we should have connections so people can get most everywhere in the metro by car, but this notion that we can somehow build enough lane-miles to get everyone around the metro quickly via a car for as cheap as possible is just wrong. If we need higher capacity connections we need to go with transit not more roads.

Widening roads so they can handle more traffic, ensure that is exactly what you get. More traffic. Sure more people can offer economic benefits, but lets focus the infrastructure spending on more viable growth options that support more economically prosperous walkable communities over car-dependant sprawl.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Point is, automotive infrastructure is not able to handle large volumes of people efficiently.

Yes, we should have connections so people can get most everywhere in the metro by car, but this notion that we can somehow build enough lane-miles to get everyone around the metro quickly via a car for as cheap as possible is just wrong. If we need higher capacity connections we need to go with transit not more roads.

Widening roads so they can handle more traffic, ensure that is exactly what you get. More traffic. Sure more people can offer economic benefits, but lets focus the infrastructure spending on more viable growth options that support more economically prosperous walkable communities over car-dependant sprawl.

I think you are right, particularly for those areas with the MARTA heavy rail backbone reasonably nearby. However, for those of us way out here in the boonies, we will never have the luxury of heavy rail so we have to keep up the road building.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Point is, automotive infrastructure is not able to handle large volumes of people efficiently.

Yes, we should have connections so people can get most everywhere in the metro by car, but this notion that we can somehow build enough lane-miles to get everyone around the metro quickly via a car for as cheap as possible is just wrong. If we need higher capacity connections we need to go with transit not more roads.

Widening roads so they can handle more traffic, ensure that is exactly what you get. More traffic. Sure more people can offer economic benefits, but lets focus the infrastructure spending on more viable growth options that support more economically prosperous walkable communities over car-dependant sprawl.

Sure...closer to town. This is irrelevant 50 miles OTP, which is what was being referred to in this resurrection.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Sure...closer to town. This is irrelevant 50 miles OTP, which is what was being referred to in this resurrection.

No, this is true everywhere.

Provide the connectivity so people have the option of getting there by car, but trying to expand capacity is a losing battle.

50 miles OTP is exactly where we need to need to be reigning in more car-dependant sprawl. We don't need to be encouraging more people driving into Atlanta from that far out. If you want to live somewhere rural like that, great. But lets keep it rural. And that means keeping the two laned country roads.

[MattCW]

It's called return on investment. How many people do you think a billion dollar high capacity transit system will carry? How much freight will that same system carry? The cost of the road widening is $56 Million. A lot of the traffic on that segment of 140 is truck traffic, most of which can't reliably be shifted to railroads given it's for more local distribution.

[primaltech]

Originally Posted by jsvh

50 miles OTP is exactly where we need to need to be reigning in more car-dependant sprawl. We don't need to be encouraging more people driving into Atlanta from that far out. If you want to live somewhere rural like that, great. But lets keep it rural. And that means keeping the two laned country roads.

This thread is 35 pages of people explaining to you why that is simply not the case.

I-85 is being widened to the SC border because of inter-state traffic. Long distance travel demand. It won't make anyone move to the middle of nowhere that didn't want to before. It is for road trips. And it won't make anyone want to go on a road trip that didn't already want to. It will just make them get there a few minutes faster.

[jsvh]

Limited access highways are different than surface streets. Limited access highways should be as wide as people paying the tolls are willing to (fully) fund.

Look at Florida, at lot of their highway are tolled and they now have private rail lines opening up. Even over longer distances like that rail and planes are just more economical than cars.

Let the people vote with their wallet.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Limited access highways are different than surface streets. Limited access highways should be as wide as people paying the tolls are willing to (fully) fund.

Look at Florida, at lot of their highway are tolled and they now have private rail lines opening up. Even over longer distances like that rail and planes are just more economical than cars.

Let the people vote with their wallet.

you....do realize why Florida has alot of toll roads right?

Okay even that asside, If you really have a better idea of connecting I-85 / Atlanta Metro with the rest of the entire North-Eastern (and some of the South East as well) region of the United States more effectively that GA-DOT ALONE has the power to grant by all means I'm all ears... if you intend on tolling the interstate just to keep a rural highway's traffic levels down completely forgetting that I-85 is a major economic engine that brings cargo, produce, INTER-REGIONAL both entering and exiting the state of Georgia to complete their agenda..sure you may TOLL the roads and maybe some of its traffic would decrease you would literally shoot a grenade into one of Atlanta's major economic arteries but not to worry...the trucking industry lobbyist would literally cannibalize against the idea long before it ever became a reality. How on earth do you seriously intend to accomidate for a INTERSTATE COMMERCE freeway by mass transit means?

I don't mean to come off as rude but dude you seem to have some incredibly unrealistic expectations about people and automotive transportation.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Limited access highways are different than surface streets. Limited access highways should be as wide as people paying the tolls are willing to (fully) fund.

Look at Florida, at lot of their highway are tolled and they now have private rail lines opening up. Even over longer distances like that rail and planes are just more economical than cars.

Let the people vote with their wallet.

Stick transportation costs on the user.