ATLANTA TRANSIT (Marta, Beltline, Peachtree Streetcar, LovJoy Commuter, etc...)

[whoDean]

http://www.whatsthebigidea.us/

[AtlMidtowner]

I honestly do not understand at all how you guys think an interstate divides a city. Most major cities in the world are divided by a river, or other natural barries.....well Atlanta, as virtually every city in America, may be sliced by a highway (please look at mapquest before making comments about cities). And, so what, what is the real negative effect? A few people pschologicially think their neighborhood was divided????? I could care less about that, as what is more important is FAST access to all parts of Atlanta for all. Over time, there can be two neighborhoods, and people would think of a highway any differently than you can think of a river, ocean or mountain!!! And anyway, just think how interstates divide rural areas where sometimes you must drive 10 to 20 miles to cross the other interstates. Everytime we get development, we always here some people whining about their how the development has ruined their life or neighborhood. To them, as always, I say, the only ones I feel sorry for are the American Indians.....

Peachtree Industrial Blvd outside the perimeter used to be surface street in the 1990s was built to be a limited access road. I used to have an office on PIB, and the traffic was always a disaster with all the red lights. Now, it is MUCH better. I simply do not understand the arguments against limited access highway other than abusrd emotion arguments of a handful of residents that think their neighborhood has been damaged. Later on I purchased an office park on the access roads of Peachtree Industrial Blvd. I lost a few tenants because of the difficulty of accessing my office buildings by my tenants; however, it never would have occured to me to argue against the limted access highway just because I lost a few rental dollars.

I live in Midown, and I, as probably most other people living in Midtown that dont work exclusively in Midtown or on the Marta line, I would never consider living here unless we had fast access to the entire city, not just a few blocks. I am an realist, and dont have enough years left in my life to think that public transportation will ever be sufficient in Atlanta to remotely be able to conduct my real estate business in Atlanta unless I can get to all points quickly and easily. The overwhelming majority of the people in Atlanta will feel the same. I dont want some unrealistic childish pipe dream of getting rid of the limited access highway system in Atlanta or even just downtown Atlanta and hoping someday we will have a public transportation system that can efficiciently bring me from Midtown to Riverdale the Norcross to Alpharetta to Marietta and then back to Midtown, all in one day.

Get rid of the interstates in downtown, and you can scrap half the projects on the construction forum!!! Get the opintion of any real estate investor, devloper and especially the larger investors, and they will all agree with me!!

As a first generation German-American, I definitely support improving our public transportation system. I give my support under the exclusive condition that high density living must be zoned in areas near light rail and metro. On the short run it will be expensive, but on the long run, the "marta stations" will create mini development booms in close vicinity of t the stations So far, Atlanta failed miserably on its first test in refusing to allow high density for Mason at Piedmont Park. (I was so much looking forward to looking out my spare bedroom and seeing Stone Mountain view blocked by several high rises on the other side of the park!!)

[Chris Creech]

Originally Posted by AtlMidtowner

I honestly do not understand at all how you guys think an interstate divides a city. Most major cities in the world are divided by a river, or other natural barries.....well Atlanta, as virtually every city in America, may be sliced by a highway (please look at mapquest before making comments about cities). And, so what, what is the real negative effect? A few people pschologicially think their neighborhood was divided????? I could care less about that, as what is more important is FAST access to all parts of Atlanta for all. Over time, there can be two neighborhoods, and people would think of a highway any differently than you can think of a river, ocean or mountain!!! And anyway, just think how interstates divide rural areas where sometimes you must drive 10 to 20 miles to cross the other interstates. Everytime we get development, we always here some people whining about their how the development has ruined their life or neighborhood. To them, as always, I say, the only ones I feel sorry for are the American Indians.....

Peachtree Industrial Blvd outside the perimeter used to be surface street in the 1990s was built to be a limited access road. I used to have an office on PIB, and the traffic was always a disaster with all the red lights. Now, it is MUCH better. I simply do not understand the arguments against limited access highway other than abusrd emotion arguments of a handful of residents that think their neighborhood has been damaged. Later on I purchased an office park on the access roads of Peachtree Industrial Blvd. I lost a few tenants because of the difficulty of accessing my office buildings by my tenants; however, it never would have occured to me to argue against the limted access highway just because I lost a few rental dollars.

I live in Midown, and I, as probably most other people living in Midtown that dont work exclusively in Midtown or on the Marta line, I would never consider living here unless we had fast access to the entire city, not just a few blocks. I am an realist, and dont have enough years left in my life to think that public transportation will ever be sufficient in Atlanta to remotely be able to conduct my real estate business in Atlanta unless I can get to all points quickly and easily. The overwhelming majority of the people in Atlanta will feel the same. I dont want some unrealistic childish pipe dream of getting rid of the limited access highway system in Atlanta or even just downtown Atlanta and hoping someday we will have a public transportation system that can efficiciently bring me from Midtown to Riverdale the Norcross to Alpharetta to Marietta and then back to Midtown, all in one day.

Get rid of the interstates in downtown, and you can scrap half the projects on the construction forum!!! Get the opintion of any real estate investor, devloper and especially the larger investors, and they will all agree with me!!

As a first generation German-American, I definitely support improving our public transportation system. I give my support under the exclusive condition that high density living must be zoned in areas near light rail and metro. On the short run it will be expensive, but on the long run, the "marta stations" will create mini development booms in close vicinity of t the stations So far, Atlanta failed miserably on its first test in refusing to allow high density for Mason at Piedmont Park. (I was so much looking forward to looking out my spare bedroom and seeing Stone Mountain view blocked by several high rises on the other side of the park!!)

Some good points, but...

I actually think the GaTech proposal is pretty brilliant, but not in an practical way. More the crazy concept car at the auto show way. It gets you thinking and is pretty cool to look at, but you pretty soon realize that you'll never see it on the street. It does still though sort of help shake things up and get people thinking out the box and questioning the status quo.

The comparison of interstates to rivers is interesting, but I don't see it. River cities were built on rivers and grew up organically around them. The neighborhoods and areas grew up around the rivers. Interstates were pretty much sliced through cities in fairly recent history, mostly regardless of neighborhoods and traditional boundaries. And though yes, some divided neighborhood may work on their own, look at North Grant Park, or North Ormewood north of I-20. Those have suffered tremendously. Those areas also lost some of the retail "villages" and never recovered. So it's hard to brush off the damage done by interstates as incidental and minor.

I'm sorry to see that you could care less about psychological issues with neighborhoods, and only care about quick n easy transporation. Though that's part of the equation, it's not the only thing to consider. Psychological issues are extremely important in city planning, people have to feel good about their city and neighborhoods.

While you may consider much of the public transporation planning "pipe dreams" the truth is Atlanta is way behind the curve on these solutions. Especially when you consider lead, planning, and construction times. Many of these pipe dreams should have been concrete and steel a long time ago.

I'm torn on the issue of interstates myself. Though it's interesting to look at alternative plans for what might have been. But actually the interstates played a major role in the development of Atlanta, in many positive ways. i can't help but notice that in the revised interstate map shown, there would not be a) a fast direct route from the airport to the convention hotels, and b) easy access from the main train yards to I-20, c) high traffic visibility for corporate towers and hotels. In these and countless other ways the interstates have helped grow and shape the city.

If the interstates had been done differently, we may still have been talking about the same problems, but just in other areas.

Given that though, there is a balance. First you have to realize that they've been a mixed bag, and though yes overwhelming having a positive impact on the city's development, there have been some negatives as well. The Interstate development very much parallel's Atlanta's 70s-80s "growth at any cost, whatever they won't to build let them, let's tear down the old junk" mentality.

However, moving into a new period of "enlightened urbanism" and for many now considering for the first time, things like pedestrian friendliness, street presence and scale, mixed uses, etc. it's time for Atlanta to take a more balanced approach.

No we're not going to lose any interstates, but maybe we won't be getting any more ultra expensive, mega widenings anytime soon; maybe the era of pave our way out of trouble is coming to an end, and maybe people can still zoom through downtown Atlanta just as quickly, but maybe with a few more wider bridges and parks over the interstate.

[RobMidtowner]

Originally Posted by AtlMidtowner

Peachtree Industrial Blvd outside the perimeter used to be surface street in the 1990s was built to be a limited access road. I used to have an office on PIB, and the traffic was always a disaster with all the red lights. Now, it is MUCH better.

Have you driven PIB during rush hour lately? It is far from having smooth traffic flow, in fact, the traffic is constantly backed up to the Peachtree Parkway split (nearly 4 miles) from my observations. I don't know if that qualifies as better but it still has congestion problems.

I really don't agree with the river/interstate comparison other than they both occupy land that is inaccessible unless you're in an appropriate vehicle. Usually the land adjacent to a river is the most desirable in a city and thus developed more rapidly and densely than anything else, whereas the land adjacent to an interstate is the least desirable and doesn't get developed until no land is left. It wasn't until Tech Square was built that we had anything dense (in midtown at least) next to the interstate. And even in downtown, the density of buildings decreases as you get closer to the interstate. So it seems from a development perspective that there's a difference between the desirability of rivers and interstates.

[smArTaLlone]

Originally Posted by MarketsWork

Likewise, I find it hard to believe that anyone cannot see the opportunities that this development pattern has created. The fact that Atlanta is relatively unique among big cities (by being so spread out) makes it different, not inferior. Anyone who has a region-wide business can appreciate that, as can people who change jobs without having to change residences. Atlanta never had an ocean or a navigable river, but it took advantage of its location as a crossroad for railroads, highways and aviation to become a hub of commerce.

To say that Atlanta is what it is and is doing fine does not imply that it cannot be improved. But it does imply that Atlanta works very well -- as evidenced by the fact that so many new people keep coming to seek their fortune here. And it does imply that the model is not flawed just because it differs from older cities. What many now decry as a lack of density was once seen as a park-like virtue, thanks to the luxury of unencumbered space. Atlanta is not SimCity; it was built in different times and under different circumstances, and it is growing up as a great combination of all worlds. I love it.

If opportunities were the only result of the way Atlanta has developed then there would be no argument here. Obviously that's not the case.

And every other big city in the world includes cities that have become large in the same era as Atlanta, are considerably denser and yet are just as econmoically vibrant.

[MarketsWork]

Originally Posted by smArTaLlone

And every other big city in the world includes cities that have become large in the same era as Atlanta, are considerably denser and yet are just as econmoically vibrant.

But how many of those other "new" cities have natural boundaries (ocean, bay, river, mountain, etc.) to their growth? High density was originally a function of limited mobility, and "old Atlanta" was relatively compact. But in modern times, density is a function of scarce land. Atlanta has long had the luxury of abundant and accessible land on which to build, and only recently has its accumulated growth begun to make higher density an important financial consideration.

Atlanta is different from other cities because its circumstances are different, not because it is inferior. The "sprawl" that many decry has also given Atlanta four distinct skylines (well, soon to be three!) which we all love, and has afforded Atlantans more choices than most cities could ever dream of. Since Atlanta is different, it doesn't have to be like other cities, and will continue to develop in ways that are different from many other cities. Vive le difference!

[CityFan]

Originally Posted by RobMidtowner

Usually the land adjacent to a river is the most desirable in a city and thus developed more rapidly and densely than anything else, whereas the land adjacent to an interstate is the least desirable and doesn't get developed until no land is left. It wasn't until Tech Square was built that we had anything dense (in midtown at least) next to the interstate. And even in downtown, the density of buildings decreases as you get closer to the interstate. So it seems from a development perspective that there's a difference between the desirability of rivers and interstates.

What you said is fact, but my perspection is different regarding the attractiveness of rivers or intersates for development. Rivers usually exit naturally and prior to any development, so when people select sites for development, they build things around it. Hence, density forms. However interstates are built after the fact that a town or densed population has been established. Usually they are streched to the point close enough to the heart of a town. The development pattern is like from the most densed area out due to convenience of life. When the city grows, it eventually grows to the interstates. The bottom line is that interstates providing convenient access to a city adds value to local economy. If Atlanta is not convenient, Fortune 500 won't choose it as head offices.

[dante2308]

I have not been able to access a computer for several days now and I see that this discussion has since blown up. I would like to correct my inaccuracies first. There are not a million jobs inside of the city of Atlanta apparently, but I do maintain that millions use the highway networks everyday at least in terms of trips.

As for the current issue, the argument that suburbanites are free to use highways as long as they don't "cut through my neighborhood" is rather mute. The downtown connector doesn't in any real sense currently cut through a neighborhood. Maybe in a past tense, it did, but today it exists as a given that developers develop around and near depending on the value of their properties in the respective new neighborhoods.

Midtown West isn't devoid of development and certainly isn't held back by the presence of the highway. The Georgia Institute of Technology campus and student housing and Georgia State student housing consumes the entire region between North Avenue and Fourteenth Street three miles deep. While it may seem that development stopped at the connector, the real issue is that government properties consume a great portion of Midtown West, though the campus itself is continually redeveloping. West of campus is then so far away from the rest of midtown that it is effectively cut off.

The Millennium Gate bridge again wasn't the cause for the development of Atlantic Station while it did not hurt. Much of the development there was more or less a business partnership brokered all at once to create the "mini-city." It isn't like Sim City where the bridge somehow caused a lot of skyscrapers to pop out of the soil. It took a daring vision and billions as well as the cooperation of several businesses and government entities.

The development around Fifth Street east was induced almost directly by the government in the form of Georgia Tech's Tech Square. This, as well, was built all at once and created a neighborhood out of thin air despite the situation in the adjacent area. The private developments that came afterward like Aqua and Plaza Midtown are more or less separate entities that are actually more in tune with West Peachtree and Tenth Street than Spring Street and Fifth Street. Tech Square, I will admit, might have promoted some of the development, but the bridge itself did not. The bridge doesn't really go anywhere in particular other than to the fraternity row then classrooms further up the road. No where for a Plazaite to be and no where that will change any time soon.

Tenth Street's westward development is restricted to the Turner Campus, the GT Graduate Living Center, The Alexander Colosseum, and the GT President's Mansion. It not a bad road to look at, but it won't be changing much anytime soon no matter what happens to the highway. Tenth Street east is home to a few new developments including a new apartment building right up on the interstate and Aqua down about a block. Nothing to complain about on this road. Time will certainly be enough to make it a signature avenue.

Fourteenth Street's highway bridge is currently about to undergo a redevelopment. I think Fourteenth Street west was somewhat hampered by being so close to Home Park which is commonly known as the GT student ghetto and the abandoned steel mill that became Atlantic Station, but with the right vision, I don't think it will stay so desolate for long. Peachtree Street is supposed to be the center for high-rise developments so it is natural that expanding high-rises so far west would not be surprised if high-rises took some time to travel to Home Park. The point is though, if you think of the present tense, for Midtown, the connector isn't holding back much of anything. The North Avenue bridge, The Third Street pedestrian tunnel, The Fifth Street bridge, and the Tenth, Fourteenth, and Seventeenth Street bridges suffice to connect one side of the connector to the other at least in Midtown.

Of the bridges, though, I maintain that the Fifth Street Bridge was a little overdone and pricey and yielded perhaps the least effective connection to Midtown West for non GTites.

Now downtown is another animal entirely. The new projects seem promising to fill in the break between Downtown and North Avenue at least so it really shouldn't be a cause for complaint north-south. At Freedom Parkway, there is a huge break until Boulevard and I think that interchange should be redeveloped at the very least. There won’t be a Highway 78 limited access or a 400-675 limited access so we should return that area to a more pedestrian friendly state.

Downtown itself seems well enough served by having the connector bringing business, tourists, and free advertising. The east side of the connector north of MLK Boulevard is gentrifying around Little Five and Inmann Park and will be well served by the Beltline. South of MLK and north of I-20, though, seems to be in a dire state I'm not sure the highway caused it at all or removing it will help. As for the connector north of I-20, there are so many crossings that the highway appears almost buried. Really, it isn't something that can't be helped with a little landscaping and streetscape plans. No need to get rid of I-75/85.

Now, as for the use of the connector itself, I-75/85 is not solely used for one purpose. While many thousands use it to get to and from work, many thousands use it to get to concerts and sporting venues, and many thousands use it to run business and leisure errands innumerable. Of course, as some have stated, the connector is used by some to get through the city or from one part of the city to another, but, to some degree, all interstates are. As for tearing it down, the connector's usefulness has not eroded. As we all know, Atlanta is experiencing a resurgence and with it, the traffic on the connector has been steadily rising. It has formed a new use, that is, for Midtowners and Downtowners to get to the rest of the city.

On a personal note, before I moved here, visiting the city the view from the connector amazed and dazzled me and I couldn't help but take pictures of the skyline at night. Three months later, I was living here. My point being that the connector has been great advertising for Atlanta on top of all it's other uses. As I have tried to prove here as well, it isn't so much of an insurmountable barrier either. Nothing a little creativity wouldn't make a non issue.

My last point is about that map. The I-420 project was halted in part due to neighborhood protesting having their communities run through. That map seems to sacrifice their properties in order to relocate a highway that currently no one lives on. I'm also not sure about the feasibility of combining I-20 and I-285 considering the traffic problems on either. I'm not putting down the map and I appreciate the effort you put into it, but I think if I-20 were relocated, it would need to be done differently.

[whoDean]

Originally Posted by whoDean

http://www.whatsthebigidea.us/

Word has it that politicians taking a look at this website are pondering a change to the gasoline/highway tax for this congressional session.

[SAV]

Some people on this thread are little too into the whole "urban" thing. People like driving downtown and seeing all the buildings and lights and construction. The connector has become appart of Atlanta. I don't think we should tear it up just to look like some other city. Niether do I think we should build a huge tunnel over it. Both would be a waste of money.

[dante2308]

In essence, yes.

[Andrea]

There's nothing wrong with freeways when they're properly designed and used in appropriate places. But the downtown connector is an unnecessary dinosaur built in the wrong place. It has historically had and it continues to have enormous negative effects. At minimum, it should be dismantled and reconfigured in the downtown area.

If anyone is interested in seeing the sort of connectivity lost by building the connector, you can take a look here. The scene is from about 60 years ago, but it gives you an idea of what sort of city we'd have.

[Andrea]

.

[dante2308]

Looks like a small town place to me from that aerial. Can't really tell if its a college town like Statesboro or just a nowhere town that happened to have a stadium. I don't really see how that picture of Atlanta 60 years ago could be our hope for the future of a 5.2 million person metro.


This is Atlanta today. I zoomed in right on that connector to make a point. As you can see, development rolls right up to and around the highway.



This is Atlanta "60 years ago."


Now, then. It is one thing to be nostalgic for the old times. It is quite another to hope that that image represent an idea of Atlanta in the present. Yes there is a highway, but It is not very apparent from either photograph how the city is suffering. In fact, the differences in the photograph prove that Atlanta has boomed greatly since the placement of the connector and has enabled what seems to be more varied and scenic neighborhoods.

I can tell that you seem against the very idea of highways in Atlanta proper. Let me suggest you move to a place where highways are far and few in between as the reality of the matter is that the highway is as much Atlanta as Midtown itself.

You cannot redirect the people who move along the connector into surface streets or onto other highways. It isn't feasible and it doesn't serve much of a purpose. A plus about the surface streets is that they only handle local traffic so they tend to be pretty light except at peak hours. If you don't give people the highway alternative, they will be forced to clog up those surface streets and stifle the region.

What exactly do you think would happen if the connector vanished anyhow? Some sort of urban renewal? What do you think is happening now? Why are you so dead set against the connector? It doesn't cut through the city, it is a piece of it. Businesses grew around it because of it's existence. Atlanta is growing around it taking for granted it's continued existence. People cross those dozen bridges without thinking twice. How would anyone possibly benefit its destruction? It is a strip half a block wide, not an international airport or something plopped into downtown.

Last question: If dismantling it is a minimum, what would be the maximum or were you using a literary device to prove a point?

[dante2308]

One more time: If we had the money to do something like dismantle, bury, or cover the connector in parks, we should be using that money to address the transportation problems regionwide. If the cost of that extra runway at the airport would be enough to get all the outstanding transportation and transit projects off the ground, the cost of dismantling a highway and upgrading all core surface streets would surely be enough to heal much of our woes. Instead of adding a few blocks of desireable developable land (when we really have no shortage) at the expense of our urban fabric, we should focus on our priorities.

There aren't enough projects to fill the perimeter, why insist on making extra space out of our transportation network? Nice neighborhoods are developing all around. The highway didn't stop that, leave it alone. It's not like we can put low-income housing or any housing back in the connector anyhow.

Please, Andrea, tell me what harm the connector is causing today.

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by dante2308

I can tell that you seem against the very idea of highways in Atlanta proper. Let me suggest you move to a place where highways are far and few in between ...

Well, Dante, I've already explained very clearly why gigantic limited access highways should be placed on the periphery of existing urban areas rather than rammed right through the heart of them. I'm not going to repeat that again.

As to your suggestion that I should move to another town, I'd prefer to stay here and advocate for better policies. Sorry if that troubles you.

[Chris Creech]

Originally Posted by dante2308

This is Atlanta today. I zoomed in right on that connector to make a point. As you can see, development rolls right up to and around the highway.

Actually, this image sort of proves the opposite. What you have is a great underdevelopment of prime downtown parcels, because no one wants to be next to the interstate. On the bottom side you have a lowrise discount hotel against the interstate, where a block away you have the Hilton. On the top side you have a lowrent apartment building and a small midrise, both older undesirable buildings on lots not likely to be redeveloped because of the proximity to the interstate.

You also have a tendency for people to put surface lots and parking against the interstate, treating it as the "backside" of any development. If you had the interstate covered there, suddenly developments could be designed to have four working engaged elevations. You wouldn't get those backside no-man's lands.

Now if you were to just cover over that short stretch of the interstate and drop in a park, nicer pedestrial sidewalks, etc. Suddenly a minus (noise, pollution) becomes a plus (green space, open views).

You'd actually be taking low income producing tax property and allowing it to be redeveloped at a much higher density and generate more revenue for the city, and other government entities, and that's not small change.



"In fact, the differences in the photograph prove that Atlanta has boomed greatly since the placement of the connector and has enabled what seems to be more varied and scenic neighborhoods."

Okay, I agree that the interstates certainly allowed for more development, but I think trying to promote them as driving scenic beauty and diversity in the area is a bit much.

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by dante2308

Looks like a small town place to me from that aerial. Can't really tell if its a college town like Statesboro or just a nowhere town that happened to have a stadium. I don't really see how that picture of Atlanta 60 years ago could be our hope for the future of a 5.2 million person metro.

By the way, I somehow assumed you'd realize that the photo from 60 years ago wasn't intended to compare the number of buildings we have today, but to demonstrate the level of connectivity we lost.

A well designed network of surface streets can accommodate enormous amounts of traffic without damaging the urban fabric. By contrast, limited access freeways by definition attempt to funnel traffic into a smaller number of side-by-side lanes, with only a relative handful of access points. Limited access freeways don't permit travelers to directly depart from or stop at the numerous shops, residences, offices, parks, schools or other destinations which characterize urban areas. They are unable to adjust to either peak or off-peak demand times. They are unable to diffuse traffic or to offer alternative routes. They prohibit pedestrian access, except via occasional (and extremely expensive) bridges. They've often resulted in the precipitous decline of adjoining neighborhoods. I happen to live next to one myself, and the level of around-the-clock automobile noise and ambient lighting vastly exceeds that which is generated by Peachtree Street, which is also only one block away.

If you really want to appreciate the network of urban streets that were sacrificed for the downtown connector, I've posted the full size image of Atlanta before the freeway was built here.

[RobMidtowner]

Wow Andrea, what an interesting picture. That really opens my eyes to what you're saying and since interstates were built before I was born, I never realized how much the connector changed the layout of the city. Thanks for enlightening me . I think sometimes people look at Atlanta like it hasn't gotten it's act together yet in terms of transportation infrastructure and city layout, but few people realize that Atlanta started with good transportation infrastructure and somehow declined to the traffic trap it is today.

[catlike]

^^^

That is a great photo. It really makes Downtown and Midtown look denser and grander.