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.
This thread keeps going in circles (ha, see what I did there.)
I don't fully buy that a true outer perimeter freeway bypass wouldn't have a lot of public support in 2022, just because it didn't in 2002. A lot has changed since then, including a whole lot more people and traffic and sprawl added to that metro.
Especially if it was done in a "tasteful" way, as discussed earlier in the thread. That is, far enough out that it's not tearing right through suburban communities, few enough exits and limited access that it isn't causing very much new suburban sprawl or change in character of rural areas, and the roadway itself would not need to be more than 2 lanes in each direction, and could even be dug lower in a trench so that it's less of an eyesore or impact. It could have scenic forest making it a pleasant drive.
But anyway, if building a new roadway is truly politically impossible, then they need to look to significantly upgrade existing arterial roads that aren't I-285. I-285 hasn't been a perimeter or a bypass for a long time, in terms of the metro area development and population. Just adding some managed lanes on it is not a solution for the metro area traffic movement.
At the very least, SR-20 needs to look like this plan with 3 straight travel lanes in each direction and more controlled access, for its whole length from I-75 to GA-316. This plan is starting construction, but only covers the middle section of the top end, west of Cumming and east of I-75:
Even that wouldn't be an ideal outer perimeter or northern arc, since it wouldn't be a freeway, but if that's truly the only political possibility, then at least they should do that and design it consistently as best as they possibly can, and spend money on that.
Also the Hwy 53 corridor from Calhoun (I-75) to Winder (316) should be fully widened to 2 lanes in each direction.
And similar widening and upgrading projects for the arterials on the east and west walls and south side.
There needs to be other ways for traffic to get around (and bypass) Metro Atlanta, other than I-285 and the same old few interstates, and a reduction in the bottleneck congestion associated with having so few routes. Surely that's something that many residents of the metro would agree with and politically support.
It’s not just that the Outer Perimeter concept was deeply unpopular with the metro Atlanta/North Georgia voting public 20 years ago during the gubernatorial election in 2002.
The Outer Perimeter concept was also deeply unpopular 10 years ago during the metro Atlanta regional T-SPLOST referendum in 2012.
And you make a good point that a lot has changed not just since the stunning (but not really surprising) public rejection of the unpopular Outer Perimeter proposal in 2002 but also since the public rejection of the T-SPLOST referendum in 2012.
Unfortunately, for ardent supporters of the Outer Perimeter concept, one of the things that has probably changed is that the increased population of the metro Atlanta/North Georgia region means that there are more people than before available to oppose such a proposal.
And proposing to build an Outer Perimeter highway farther out from Atlanta than the late-1990’s/early-2000’s version of the proposed highway only serves to push the highway farther out towards the interests (including regional and national environmentalists, local residents and landowners, etc.) that will fight harder to defeat such a proposal that they bitterly oppose.
Exurban and rural interests seem to hate the Outer Perimeter concept even more than suburbanites and urbanites because the state and federally protected wilderness areas that are located farther out from the city.
One of the seemingly many major issues with the late-‘90’s/early-‘00’s version of the Outer Perimeter was that the road was proposed to run through about 3 protected wilderness areas in Cherokee/Bartow and Paulding counties... Which is something that instantly made it a huge main target of both regional and national environmentalists along with local residents who love the wilderness element of their exurban/rural communities.
Keep in mind that these regional and national environmentalists are some of the same factions that successfully fought to keep I-75 from being built through Red Top Mountain State Park by forcing a 5-year construction delay and ultimate re-routing of I-75 around Red Top Mountain State Park back in the 1970’s.
Also keep in mind that many of the locals in outlying areas surrounding Atlanta (especially to the north of Atlanta) already consider their areas to be scenic forest areas that include some of the most pleasant drives along existing roads... That’s including in outlying areas like western Paulding County (Paulding Forest and Sheffield Wildlife Management Areas), Cherokee/Bartow counties (Allatoona and Pine Log Wildlife Management Areas), Dawson County (Dawson Forest tract and Amicalola Falls State Park) and the greater North Georgia Mountains/foothills region (Chattahoochee National Forest).
And the ideal of tasteful of most of the parties involved (from local residents who like the wilderness character of their areas, to affluent and well-connected metro Atlanta residents who love to use the foothills and mountains area north of Atlanta as a playground of sorts, to regional and national environmentalists who view the issue of encroachment of heavy development on the area in terms of an epic battle of good vs. evil) is to not have an Outer Perimeter superhighway of any type built through the area, no matter how seemingly well-meaning by those who support the Outer Perimeter concept.
What if if were something like this? No truck access, limited speed, no commercial development or signs, and exits *only* to scenic places like Amicalola or national forests?— not onto any existing road. Intentionally design it so it's good for tourists, good for bypassing Atlanta, but designed to make the existing areas out there inaccessible to urban sprawl.
What if if were something like this? No truck access, limited speed, no commercial development or signs, and exits *only* to scenic places like Amicalola or national forests?— not onto any existing road. Intentionally design it so it's good for tourists, good for bypassing Atlanta, but designed to make the existing areas out there inaccessible to urban sprawl.
I still don't get why having one, tastefully designed, non-superhighway, scenic turnpike type bypass road with minimal or no local exits, would ruin any wilderness. There's tons of wilderness out there.
I still don't get why having one, tastefully designed, non-superhighway, scenic turnpike type bypass road with minimal or no local exits, would ruin any wilderness. There's tons of wilderness out there.
It won't. But some people are scared of development following.
In any event, the northern part is the least useful to the metro. East and West bypasses are far more important. The northern part is mostly beneficial to people who live there.
What if if were something like this? No truck access, limited speed, no commercial development or signs, and exits *only* to scenic places like Amicalola or national forests?— not onto any existing road. Intentionally design it so it's good for tourists, good for bypassing Atlanta, but designed to make the existing areas out there inaccessible to urban sprawl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
I still don't get why having one, tastefully designed, non-superhighway, scenic turnpike type bypass road with minimal or no local exits, would ruin any wilderness. There's tons of wilderness out there.
Whether rightfully or wrongfully, it’s fears over the encroachment of the type of extremely heavy development found in the 5-county core of metro Atlanta (Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton, Cobb and Gwinnett counties) that has driven much of the opposition to an Outer Perimeter highway in the Atlanta region.
People fear an Outer Perimeter highway will destroy their beloved wilderness areas (wilderness areas beloved not just by local residents and regional and national environmentalists, but also by affluent metro Atlantans who like to use the exurban and rural wilderness areas north of Atlanta as a playground of sorts with the vineyards, second homes and outdoor recreational areas that they frequent) by generating the type of heavy metropolitan development that the freeway system has already generated throughout much of the rest of the Atlanta region where freeways are already located.
Even if a roadway is proposed to run through an area with limited exits on a parkway-type setup, metro Atlantans and North Georgians don’t believe that the road will stay that way for long because of the very strong influence of real estate developers on state and local government.
A parkway-type setup with limited exits was what the Roy Barnes gubernatorial administration proposed to attempt to get the Outer Perimeter highway built back in the very early 2000’s in the face of growing opposition to the road that was being generated by growing public concerns over the adverse effects of sprawl on the environment at the time.
Much of the public was deeply skeptical over the Barnes administration’s proposal to limit the exits on the proposed Outer Perimeter highway to address concerns about sprawl. But when it was discovered that multiple members of the Barnes administration were buying land near junctions where future exits could be located along a road that was supposed to have very few exits, much of the metro Atlanta and North Georgia voting public completely soured on an Outer Perimeter highway proposal that they already had perceived as being not much more than a profit opportunity for developers.
When one is talking about proposing to run an Outer Perimeter superhighway near Amicalola Falls, one is basically volunteering for an exercise in emotional self-torture with all of the fierce opposition that such a road construction proposal most assuredly will generate from a coalition of people who have the confidence of knowing that they have defeated such road construction proposals in the past and are very confident that they’ll do it again.
Widening GA-20 in the continued absence of an Outer Perimeter superhighway bypass is a very good idea... Though, the GA-20 route does have some notable limitations as an alternative to I-285, including the inability to build a new multi-lane roadway to bypass the City of Cumming proper in Forsyth County along with the protected wilderness area that the GA-20 roadway goes through between the I-575 and I-75 junctions.
In addition to the truck traffic that the growing amount of development up that way generates along that corridor, GA-20 does seem to also get at least some noticeable use as an alternative to the Top End of the I-285 Perimeter for some through truck traffic during peak traffic hours.
Though, we probably should expect the much-needed widening of the GA-20 corridor to be a panacea for pulling traffic off of I-285, especially with factors like increasing development on the Northside of Atlanta and increasing demand for online shopping, etc, continuing to increase the amount of truck traffic on superhighways like I-285 and the rest of the freeway system in metro Atlanta.
... Which is why elevated truck-only lanes may be likely to eventually be added to I-285 and the freeway system outside of the I-285 Perimeter.
How about self-driving air taxi's with lanes over the interstates?
Another idea could be dedicated lanes on city streets for self driving transit vehicles (with say 4 people max), where the lights turn green automatically for the transit vehicles to wisk them rapidly through town (similar to rapid bus transit), but with the added benefit of the self-driving transit vehicles dropping you off at your doorstep.
Another idea would be underground tunnels for self-driving vehicles and transit vehicles. Unlike trains, these vehicles could exit the tunnel and hop on city streets to reach final destinations.
What if if were something like this? No truck access, limited speed, no commercial development or signs, and exits *only* to scenic places like Amicalola or national forests?— not onto any existing road. Intentionally design it so it's good for tourists, good for bypassing Atlanta, but designed to make the existing areas out there inaccessible to urban sprawl.
The 'No truck access' would pretty much ruin the whole intent and design of the road.. ..its purpose is to divert unnecessary freight traffic from the inner-city... but I do agree that a scenic parkway could be made.. ..but it would still need to be accessible by trucks.
The 'No truck access' would pretty much ruin the whole intent and design of the road.. ..its purpose is to divert unnecessary freight traffic from the inner-city... but I do agree that a scenic parkway could be made.. ..but it would still need to be accessible by trucks.
We already have at leaat one truck bypass, there's one that goes from the Rome area down to around Newnan (?). It's not incredibly well marked. If you add trucks into the equation, it's not a scenic bypass any more. You would have to do a lot more grading, any exits and overpasses would have to be large to accommodate trucks, and truck stops/weighing stations would have to be put in. That, plus the stress of having to drive around 18 wheelers.
... Which is why elevated truck-only lanes may be likely to eventually be added to I-285 and the freeway system outside of the I-285 Perimeter.
I'd rather see a bunch of elevated 'skyway' type lanes flying around everywhere for the cars and regular size vehicles, and the trucks down on the ground, in their own dedicated truck lanes.
The 3 lanes on the right would be general purpose as they are now, then there would be a physical barrier, and 2 truck only lanes, and then instead of that 6th lane, there would be large supports running in the median, supporting a higher level of flyover lanes, 2 managed/ Peach Pass toll lanes going in both directions.
So then instead of 5 lanes of general purpose and 1 managed lane, you'd have 3 lanes of cars, 2 lanes of trucks, and 2 more managed/express lanes of cars flying over.
That would both add an additional lane of capacity, and also separate out all the traffic. Trucks would only ever use the general purpose lanes when exiting or entering the freeway, and otherwise they would cruise along in their own lanes. The cars would have a lot more safety and visibility to not have to drive right behind and in between all those massive tractor trailers.
The 3 lanes on the right would be general purpose as they are now, then there would be a physical barrier, and 2 truck only lanes, and then instead of that 6th lane, there would be large supports running in the median, supporting a higher level of flyover lanes, 2 managed/ Peach Pass toll lanes going in both directions.
So, the New Jersey Turnpike, but with another roadway elevated above the inner lanes?
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.
