Tunnel vision
People concerned with how to deal with highway traffic demands in Atlanta have recently been pimping ideas which include not only double-decker highways but also a tunnel to ease congestion on the downtown connector. As someone who saw firsthand the construction clusterfuck that was Boston's Big Dig to put the Central Artery underground through downtown Boston, I have been continually amazed that people would even consider creating such a mess. The Big Dig should be a cautionary tale of the worst kind--not only did it take much longer than anticipated, cost exponentionally more than original estimates, and provide an excellent case study for contractor malfeasance and waste, but it killed someone. Since opening, the tunnel has been riddled with safety concerns and construction problems that have required a constant crew of safety inspectors and repairmen who will probably be working overtime for the rest of their working lives.
But in addition to all the other safety problems, since opening the Big Deag has been riddled with leaks which result in lane closures in the winter as the leaking water freezes and builds on itself farther and farther into the tunnel. Even though a crew is working on plugging the leaks and even though a system was built to drain water from the tunnel, the Boston Globe reported today that the amount of such water being pumped out each year has continued to rise to nearly 2 million gallons this most recent year. What will happen if that pumping system fails? Why is the amount of leakage continuing to rise even as repair crews work to plug the leaks? Is anyone else getting a Dutch Boy image? The tunnel is starting to look like a fragile disaster waiting to happen. If I still lived there I would steadfastly refuse to drive through it because, well, not only do I have a fear of being trapped in a tunnel but I also have absolutely zero trust at this point in the structural integrity of the most expensive public works project in U.S. history.
Maybe Atlanta wouldn't have as much of an issue with leakage because it's not a coastal city, but do we really trust that the design and construction of such a massive tunnel would avoid all of the other safety and structural integrity pitfalls that have befallen the Big Dig? Do we think they could dig a tunnel on budget and on time, even though nobody else ever has? If you are about to tell me how great our DOT is, let me remind you of that little problem of the missing sign that allowed a bus to go crashing off an overpass.
There are no obvious and easy ways to fix Atlanta's ever-increasing highway traffic problem, because even expansion of mass transit (for some reason an untouchable option for our lawmakers) would be expensive and complicated. But still, we would all be collossal idiots to select the "solution" that is most likely to be a gigantic expensive and dangerous mess. Let's learn from Boston's experience rather than being doomed to repeat it.
But in addition to all the other safety problems, since opening the Big Deag has been riddled with leaks which result in lane closures in the winter as the leaking water freezes and builds on itself farther and farther into the tunnel. Even though a crew is working on plugging the leaks and even though a system was built to drain water from the tunnel, the Boston Globe reported today that the amount of such water being pumped out each year has continued to rise to nearly 2 million gallons this most recent year. What will happen if that pumping system fails? Why is the amount of leakage continuing to rise even as repair crews work to plug the leaks? Is anyone else getting a Dutch Boy image? The tunnel is starting to look like a fragile disaster waiting to happen. If I still lived there I would steadfastly refuse to drive through it because, well, not only do I have a fear of being trapped in a tunnel but I also have absolutely zero trust at this point in the structural integrity of the most expensive public works project in U.S. history.
Maybe Atlanta wouldn't have as much of an issue with leakage because it's not a coastal city, but do we really trust that the design and construction of such a massive tunnel would avoid all of the other safety and structural integrity pitfalls that have befallen the Big Dig? Do we think they could dig a tunnel on budget and on time, even though nobody else ever has? If you are about to tell me how great our DOT is, let me remind you of that little problem of the missing sign that allowed a bus to go crashing off an overpass.
There are no obvious and easy ways to fix Atlanta's ever-increasing highway traffic problem, because even expansion of mass transit (for some reason an untouchable option for our lawmakers) would be expensive and complicated. But still, we would all be collossal idiots to select the "solution" that is most likely to be a gigantic expensive and dangerous mess. Let's learn from Boston's experience rather than being doomed to repeat it.
5 comments:
I actually have been in favor of covering up from say 17th street down to 10th with a park, sell some real estate at either end and pay for the entire thing. You really wouldn't be burying, just covering up. Additionally, as land values increased, we could cover the entire highway and eventually technology will be able to trap gases emitted from cars while in the covered area and scrub them, ideally by using vegetation growing in the park above.
notice i didn't actually controvert any of your other points though, hopefully I did so impliedly. Remember that word from law school? I went to Georgia, but I assume it's all the same.
By the way, your comments on BfD contain way better legal reasoning than mine, but I have the feeling that mucb of it goes over much of the readers heads anyway, so...
Aha! Now I know who you are!
I don't think they could work out the structural engineering to be able to put buildings over the highway as it presently exists--they'd need to dig it much deeper. They tried that whole "building over the highway" thing with the Massachusetts Turnpike too, and with 1 or 2 exceptions it was just too difficult and expensive to be cost-effective.
Luckily for me, I'm a legal geek so I don't mind if nobody understands wtf I'm talking about. :-)
I don't know that either of us really has the background to debate structural engineering points, but here goes. The original plan for 17th street bridge was to support some type of building, it was nixed for non structural reasons. 400 Financial Center or whatever the name is (Where Morris Manning is) is built directly above 400. Now while 400 is much narrower than the downtown connector, the amount of distance you'd have to go while being unsupported is about the same.
Shhh, don't tell anyone.
Post a Comment