Let's Leave I-85 Closed (Atlanta, Buford: employment, school, transportation)

[cwkimbro]

One more detail.... Mostly regarding I-20

Thinking a bit bigger, but looking for opportunity to build ground-level freeways and only needing to remove some existing neighborhoods....

I would split I-20 into 2 on the westside: 1) A CBD bound business spur following the current route that turns into an arterial downtown and 2) a new segment that goes from Douglasville and connects to Langford Pkwy and continues onto I-20 on the east side.

There are some problem spots and some spots that would be changed drastically outside I-285 for this, but it is as crazy as it sounds. There is a great deal of undeveloped land in that area and there are some major industrial areas that would benefit from the access to multiple freeways (ie. Fulton Industrial Blvd).

This would straighten the cross-town route a bit as both ends of the route curve south.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

One more detail.... Mostly regarding I-20

Thinking a bit bigger, but looking for opportunity to build ground-level freeways and only needing to remove some existing neighborhoods....

I would split I-20 into 2 on the westside: 1) A CBD bound business spur following the current route that turns into an arterial downtown and 2) a new segment that goes from Douglasville and connects to Langford Pkwy and continues onto I-20 on the east side.

There are some problem spots and some spots that would be changed drastically outside I-285 for this, but it is as crazy as it sounds. There is a great deal of undeveloped land in that area and there are some major industrial areas that would benefit from the access to multiple freeways (ie. Fulton Industrial Blvd).

This would straighten the cross-town route a bit as both ends of the route curve south.

Or just use Atlanta's Bypass; I-285

[whodean]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Or just use Atlanta's Bypass; I-285

Yep, this whole exercise is pretty misguided. What is really needed is to route through traffic, especially freight, further away from Atlanta.

[whodean]

In a return to reality:

ATLANTA - Atlanta’s mayor is warning drivers to have a full tank of gas on Monday because traffic is expected to be extremely heavy.

Kasim Reed said that traffic and travel times could be 30 percent higher than usual on Monday as many families return back from spring break and have to deal with the Interstate 85 construction.

In a news conference Friday, Reed said the commute will not be a “business as usual situation at all.”

Many schools have been on spring break since the fiery collapse of I-85 near GA 400.

Drivers are urged to use alternate modes of transportation on Monday or telecommute, if possible.

[BELMO45]

More brilliant GDOT moves it seems. I noticed yesterday and today that some of the green arrows were taken away for left turns on Cheshire and Piedmont to improve north/south traffic flow. This is going to lead to accidents. The most dangerous one by far is the left off Cheshire onto Lavista/Lindberg. That is a very dangerous turn as it is because Cheshire has a subtle bend to the south so it's very hard to see oncoming north traffic when making that turn. In addition your view is obstructed by the vehicles trying to make a left onto Lindberg. I understand they want to improve north/south traffic flow but why not just make the lights longer.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Get off your high horse, jsvh. You post all sorts of bogus claims all the time, and just move on when someone proves you wrong. If I can't see how the data was collected, I can't assume it is correct.

Yes, I was incorrect on the london miles because I don't own excel and wasn't installing some office suite just to open some obscure filetype. You said per capita, so I assumed you actually meant per capita. Per 1000 is not per capita.

The view from my horse is just fine. When you learn how either find your own data or to work a basic piece spreadsheet we can talk. Until then, maybe you ought to give throwing out unsupported claims a break.

Originally Posted by samiwas1

As I have said many times before, and which you consistently fail to acknowledge: THESE CITIES HAVE EXTENSIVE ARTERIAL ROADS AND TRANSIT SYSTEMS. You want to lose the highways AND have no arterial roads. And you want to do all that without a viable transit network in place.

We have arterial roads and transit. I am not proposing to get rid of arterial roads. Just design them to be slower flowing or make drivers pick up 100% of the cost.

Originally Posted by samiwas1

I have said numerous times that I want to see transit expanded, and THEN we can talk about reducing the size of roads. You know, like someone who uses an ounce of logic.

Originally Posted by samiwas1

BY the way jsvh...this little quote was from one of the websites you linked to for data:

So...all this transit spending, and people aren't riding it? Are people paying the direct cost of this?

Sounds like you already think there is plenty of transit funding. We are spending it and people aren't riding it. What do you think more transit funding will achieve then? You are shooting your own argument in the foot. So, as you asked let's start (keep) talking about strategically reducing roads.

I am a fan of less government intervention in transportation in general. Including transit, but the larger road subsidies need to be scaled back first.

You pass a rule that prohibits any non-direct tax dollar funding of roads above a 35 mph design speed (forcing gas taxes / tolls to cover 100% of any non-neighborhood oriented streets), then you can ban tax transit funding too. Transit will be better off being privately run. And more people will opt for the more efficient transit (And if not, that is fine too just have drivers to pick up the tab to build new tunnels for highways or whatever they need to meet demand). Bam, traffic resolved. You might be paying $10 a mile to drive through the new underground highway, but traffic will be smooth flowing because not many of the rest of us will.

But we are not waiting for any of that. If you want us to wait for some imaginary threshold of transit before we discuss scaling back roads you have already lost. Intown has already been effectively scaling back roads and seeing positive results. As this closure shows, roads are not a need, they are a nice to have and ask people to pay more (in time or money) they will find other options that are more efficient / economical like transit or different timing of their commute. If you are wanting reducing roads to be held off, you already lost. We tried your strategy for 50+ years and it just got us some of the worst traffic in the world. Time to reverse a lot of these mistakes and get people some real transportation options.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by BELMO45

More brilliant GDOT moves it seems. I noticed yesterday and today that some of the green arrows were taken away for left turns on Cheshire and Piedmont to improve north/south traffic flow. This is going to lead to accidents. The most dangerous one by far is the left off Cheshire onto Lavista/Lindberg. That is a very dangerous turn as it is because Cheshire has a subtle bend to the south so it's very hard to see oncoming north traffic when making that turn. In addition your view is obstructed by the vehicles trying to make a left onto Lindberg. I understand they want to improve north/south traffic flow but why not just make the lights longer.

They took away green arrows? They shortened the left turn phase?
As the turning driver, they have the responsibility when entering a roadway to yield to on-coming cars. Of course they could always wait for the next, protected left turn phase.

[BELMO45]

Supposedly Buford connector south was just opened from Sidney Marcus

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by whodean

Yep, this whole exercise is pretty misguided. What is really needed is to route through traffic, especially freight, further away from Atlanta.

whodean,

This isn't misguided in the slightest. It will never happen and we all know this, but this exercise could teach you alot and make you rethink things, if you let it....

Kind of like how JSVH and occasionnally JSVH say really obsurd things that will never happen but are designed to get people to think.



This model we're discussing is actually a better model had it been done from the get go. We realize this won't actually happen.

The reason you can't simply rely on I-285 and routes further away, is simply the problem Atlanta has always had... we kept putting all our eggs in one basket. Then people complain about how big the basket is.

People need to get from the north to the southside. It isn't just traffic passing through the region. During peak hours a good 80% of the traffic on the roads is from within the metro. A far outer perimeter would be good for new exurban areas, but not for the bulk of people. I-285 is already at or near capacity going N/S. So to remove freeways from the core for through-traffic across the region, something new would need to be done.

This model creates multiple cross-town routes and gives smaller routes into the core that no crosstown traffic would ever want to use. It fixes a number of problems many here have complained about for a long time.

I know it will never happen, but I'm tired of others' arguments in this forum that have gotten rather osburdly unfair to most across the region. These 'urbanites' (cough cough ITP suburbanites from smaller Southern cities that really want small time living with a few big city perks) need to stop having their cake and eating it too. They're essentially arguing for small town living in the core, but trying to fix things with a limited amount of condo options and thinking transit will be magic for the whole region as a complete replacement to roads. The staunch single family home ITP Nimbyism .... I want to be in a suburban neighborhood close to the core and not have people drive through my streets and I want the freeways removed is horribly overplayed.

This is one of many ideas people in this very forum need to consider more. Not because they need to want this to happen, but because this makes some blunt trade-offs with some of the other aggressive things some have been saying. This is an idea to challenge people to think about trade offs. People need to start considering some of the trade-offs to more aggressive opinions and ideas.

[whodean]

I know it will never happen

Ok then, dream on