A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345

[sprjus4]

San Antonio has a better highway system too, IMO.

From Downtown, three freeway spokes to the north (I-10, US-281, I-37), two freeway spokes to the south (I-35, I-37), and a freeway spoke in each direction east-west (I-10, US-90). Plus two beltways that serve as sufficient bypasses for through traffic on I-10 (Loop 1604) and I-35 (I-410) as well as moving traffic around the metro. Plus two other freeways, SH-151 and the more recent Wurzbach Pkwy (designed like a surface road, but posted at 60 mph and grade separated) for local traffic (no direct connections to the rest of the freeway network.

Long distance wise, is directly on I-35 and I-10 (also provides easy access to SH-130) plus I-37 so direct connections to Houston, Laredo, Corpus Christi, Austin, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, and beyond.

There's also no toll roads or lanes in the entire San Antonio metropolitan area, and none planned. They did a good job dodging the toll-road era that Houston, Austin, and Dallas-Fort Worth had, though there were certainly proposals. They are now all being constructed as toll free improvements. For example, the US-281 north freeway. The Loop 1604 expansion on the north side from 4 to 10 lanes. I-10 widening both east and west of the region. I-35 Express Lanes (through traffic lanes, not HO/T). The recently completed Loop 1604 freeway upgrade on the west side. I imagine inevitably the eastern section of Loop 1604 north of I-10 will also be upgraded. It serves an important role as an effective I-10 through bypass.

[Plutonic Panda]

It is very nice SA has no tolls. I do so wish Dallas would embark on a plan to remove all of its toll roads.

[ZLoth]

I'm in favor of eliminating I-345. Just make it part of I-45.

Seriously, "tear it down"? Do you know how much traffic passes through this section of road on a daily basis? How much of US-75 in Dallas is Interstate-grade anyways?

[Plutonic Panda]

I think TxDOT needs to extend I-45 ASAP which should help it in its endeavors to rebuild the downtown Dallas stretch of freeway in any fashion.

[ethanhopkin14]

I live in a city (Austin) that scrapped a plan 35 years ago because they said if you don't build it they won't come.  Now they want to tear out freeways.  Good luck with that.

Yeah, that worked so well.  They didn't built it in Austin (to keep it a small town!) and they still came anyway.  Now we have a city with a population at about a million and an infrastructure comparable to a city of 100,000.

Yet another similarity between Portland and Austin.  Both claim to have invented the phrase Keep (Respective City) Weird, both have a high degree of hipsters, and both are staunchly anti-freeway.  Portland will never upgrade any of their interstates no matter how many people move there.

I always thought Austin sucked. The whole weird charm I think disappeared decades ago. Went there last January and wasn't impressed San Antonio was far better. the riverwalk is incredible. Austin just seemed like a city trying to be cool and failing epically at it.

Pretty much it.  What drove people to Austin years ago is no longer there.  The laid back hippie vibe has been gone for almost 30 years, replaced with an extremely pretentious attitude.  All the wile trying to give the illusion that it is still a hippie utopia, or escape from the big cities.  Everyone needs to wake the hell up.

[OCGuy81]

San Antonio has a better highway system too, IMO.

From Downtown, three freeway spokes to the north (I-10, US-281, I-37), two freeway spokes to the south (I-35, I-37), and a freeway spoke in each direction east-west (I-10, US-90). Plus two beltways that serve as sufficient bypasses for through traffic on I-10 (Loop 1604) and I-35 (I-410) as well as moving traffic around the metro. Plus two other freeways, SH-151 and the more recent Wurzbach Pkwy (designed like a surface road, but posted at 60 mph and grade separated) for local traffic (no direct connections to the rest of the freeway network.

Long distance wise, is directly on I-35 and I-10 (also provides easy access to SH-130) plus I-37 so direct connections to Houston, Laredo, Corpus Christi, Austin, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, and beyond.

There's also no toll roads or lanes in the entire San Antonio metropolitan area, and none planned. They did a good job dodging the toll-road era that Houston, Austin, and Dallas-Fort Worth had, though there were certainly proposals. They are now all being constructed as toll free improvements. For example, the US-281 north freeway. The Loop 1604 expansion on the north side from 4 to 10 lanes. I-10 widening both east and west of the region. I-35 Express Lanes (through traffic lanes, not HO/T). The recently completed Loop 1604 freeway upgrade on the west side. I imagine inevitably the eastern section of Loop 1604 north of I-10 will also be upgraded. It serves an important role as an effective I-10 through bypass.

I totally agree on SA's road system.  Effective, and doesn't rely on any toll roads!

Are there long term plans for 1604 to be a complete limited access loop? It seems south and east of the metro area isn't super populated, so I don't imagine it's high priority, but Texas is great about building roads.

[yakra]

Yet another similarity between Portland and Austin.  Both claim to have invented the phrase Keep (Respective City) Weird, both have a high degree of hipsters, and both are staunchly anti-freeway.  Portland will never upgrade any of their interstates no matter how many people move there.

MDOT is in the middle of widening I-95 to 6 lanes up to mile 49 as we speak.

[sprjus4]

Are there long term plans for 1604 to be a complete limited access loop? It seems south and east of the metro area isn't super populated, so I don't imagine it's high priority, but Texas is great about building roads.

I believe there's been plans to upgrade the remaining segment north of I-10 on the east side to freeway standards, but the rest seems to be planned for four lane divided highway with interchanges / frontage roads at larger intersections. It appears it will be mostly traffic signal free though (except with junctions like US-90 West or I-37 South), and still room in the long term to upgrade further to limited access if needed.

You're right as far as population wise, the majority of the newer growth is on the north and west side, where US-281 is currently being upgraded to a freeway and where Loop 1604 was upgraded a few years ago, both from previous non-limited-access clogged arterials.

[sprjus4]

Having SH-130 is certainly nice to avoid Austin. Sure, there will always be local traffic issues with the local freeways and I-35, but there's always a route for long distance traffic to avoid it all entirely and stay in the freeway network (and with the bonus of faster 80-85 mph limits!) - no trying to circumnavigate back roads through small towns or sit on congested I-35.

[Anthony_JK]

Yet another similarity between Portland and Austin.  Both claim to have invented the phrase Keep (Respective City) Weird, both have a high degree of hipsters, and both are staunchly anti-freeway.  Portland will never upgrade any of their interstates no matter how many people move there.

MDOT is in the middle of widening I-95 to 6 lanes up to mile 49 as we speak.

Portland, Oregon....not Portland, Maine.

[Bobby5280]

I am talking about getting around in the City of Austin itself, in particular the anti-freeway 60's and 70's that's burning us now.  Not to mention Oak Hill freeway portion that is working on 40 years with no progress that once built will be 20 years obsolete.

The Austin metro is just way too populated not to have a full Interstate quality outlet going West out of the area. US-290 should be that outlet, all the way past Johnson City and Fredericksburg to I-10. I agree, once the freeway is extended to just West of Circle Drive a whole lot of upgrading will be needed. Somehow the freeway has to be pushed West of Dripping Springs and connected to US-281 going to Johnson City. And TX-45 needs to be completed to I-35 and extended West to US-290. That would at least allow the South half of TX-45 to function as a proper bypass of downtown Austin.

San Antonio has a better highway system too, IMO.

Yeah, it's no contest when compared to Austin. San Antonio's freeway system at least has one complete loop highway. The FM-1604 outer loop is steadily being upgraded. The TX-46 corridor North of San Antonio is a serious threat for needing freeway upgrades from Boerne to New Braunfels and down to Seguin. With San Marcos growing rapidly the TX-80 corridor may eventually need a freeway from San Marcos down to Luling and I-10.

[sparker]

It's likely that the 345 teardown advocates are, by a process of elimination, expecting through N-S traffic to detour around the city center/downtown by using the I-20/635 outer loop.  But that composite facility would have to be expanded to at least 5+5 (not counting frontage lanes) to be viable in that respect.   But commercial feasibility doesn't seem to figure into their process; they seem to envision the city center as a kind of "reservation" or even a "park" catering to people who don't have or don't want to utilize a personal vehicle (at least anything larger than a Vespa!) -- and who have limited use for basic commerce.  In short, an idealized living pattern, largely ignoring or compartmentalizing personal economic interest in favor of an approach that assumes communal interests -- at least as envisioned by the activists and their cohorts in the planning arena -- can and will override most if not all commercial concerns.  I just wonder if they regularly poll the folks who live and work in those areas to determine whether their concerns are echoed within that population, or are simply functioning as the loudest voice in the process, drowning out alternative viewpoints.

Nevertheless, if the concept of sinking & capping 345 has indeed been foiled by other subsurface facilities' plans, then the teardown advocates may well prevail by being the last plan standing, unless a "prettier" freeway-retaining surface solution is proffered instead.  Upthread a poster suggested simply extending I-45 to the TX/OK state line and daring the RE/T folks to sever it; it that can be arranged, it may not be such a terrible idea -- at least it negates the depiction of I-345 being a "useless spur".     

[silverback1065]

It's likely that the 345 teardown advocates are, by a process of elimination, expecting through N-S traffic to detour around the city center/downtown by using the I-20/635 outer loop.  But that composite facility would have to be expanded to at least 5+5 (not counting frontage lanes) to be viable in that respect.   But commercial feasibility doesn't seem to figure into their process; they seem to envision the city center as a kind of "reservation" or even a "park" catering to people who don't have or don't want to utilize a personal vehicle (at least anything larger than a Vespa!) -- and who have limited use for basic commerce.  In short, an idealized living pattern, largely ignoring or compartmentalizing personal economic interest in favor of an approach that assumes communal interests -- at least as envisioned by the activists and their cohorts in the planning arena -- can and will override most if not all commercial concerns.  I just wonder if they regularly poll the folks who live and work in those areas to determine whether their concerns are echoed within that population, or are simply functioning as the loudest voice in the process, drowning out alternative viewpoints.

Nevertheless, if the concept of sinking & capping 345 has indeed been foiled by other subsurface facilities' plans, then the teardown advocates may well prevail by being the last plan standing, unless a "prettier" freeway-retaining surface solution is proffered instead.  Upthread a poster suggested simply extending I-45 to the TX/OK state line and daring the RE/T folks to sever it; it that can be arranged, it may not be such a terrible idea -- at least it negates the depiction of I-345 being a "useless spur".     

do these people realize this "useless spur" isn't even a spur? it goes straight north to the burbs too! I feel like they call it 345 so they can pretend it just goes for a few blocks, not as far as US 75 goes.

[silverback1065]

the only issue I have with san antonio's freeways is that weird kink in 410 on the north east side of town. what's up with that?

[bwana39]

  Upthread a poster suggested simply extending I-45 to the TX/OK state line and daring the RE/T folks to sever it; it that can be arranged, it may not be such a terrible idea -- at least it negates the depiction of I-345 being a "useless spur".     

No one had ever heard of I-345 until the urbanists grabbed onto it as a mantra. It was something for them to marginalize the idea that the elevated section downtown was more than just a part of US-75.

Making it all be I-45 undoes said mantra. The only reason it isn't part of US-75 is because it was built 50 years ago more or less using money that only could be used on Interstate Highways.  I-45 seemingly was never going to go that direction. Central Expressway beyond downtown was already freeway. If interstate funds were coming for I-45, there were other places to build with it.  At the time it seemed a SH-78 route or perhaps TX-114 were candidates. 

By the way, that is why no additional Interstates have been made in Texas. When Federal Funds reserved for only Interstate Highways evaporated, Texas didn't think a special number was worth the extra cost of making it meet that extra step as an Interstate.  If you could build a US or State Highway freeway for 90% (perhaps less) than an Interstate, why not?

[sprjus4]

Wasn't US-281 North in San Antonio (effectively a northern continuation of I-37 similar to how US-75 is to I-45) built with 100% state funding to avoid the NEPA process?

[bwana39]

Wasn't US-281 North in San Antonio (effectively a northern continuation of I-37 similar to how US-75 is to I-45) built with 100% state funding to avoid the NEPA process?

I am not so sure NEPA has anything to do with it, as virtually every construction project in Texas goes through what seems as the same EIS process as does those with Federal offsets. Historically in Texas before I-69 (which itself is federally mandated) and I-14 (which is a Fort Hood RAH-RAH), unless the funds were for Interstate routes only, Texas has preferred to do it their own way, which they cannot with an Interstate.

[sparker]

the only issue I have with san antonio's freeways is that weird kink in 410 on the north east side of town. what's up with that?

From what I know, I-410 was never originally planned as a complete loop but more an "arc" around the north & west sides of town (why it wasn't I-435 is a mystery).  It was extended around the south & east sides as a state loop; the way I-35 snakes through town dictated the northern junction point of the eastern loop segment.  As San Antonio grew (almost exponentially!), it was decided to upgrade the whole loop to I-standards.  Rather than rebuild the two I-410 junctions with I-35, the two simply multiplexed over the existing lanes.  Just a matter of keeping the overall cost down for a project built out of necessity.

[Thegeet]

Do y'all think Austin could use an interstate connection to Houston? I would personally prefer most of the US-290 corridor if so.

[Bobby5280]

Do y'all think Austin could use an interstate connection to Houston? I would personally prefer most of the US-290 corridor if so.

Austin is more than big enough a city to justify a direct East-West Interstate quality connection to metro Houston. With as much rapid growth continuing to happen in the Austin region it might become necessary to upgrade both the US-290 corridor and TX-71 corridor from Austin toward Houston.

[sprjus4]

Do y'all think Austin could use an interstate connection to Houston? I would personally prefer most of the US-290 corridor if so.

Austin is more than big enough a city to justify a direct East-West Interstate quality connection to metro Houston. With as much rapid growth continuing to happen in the Austin region it might become necessary to upgrade both the US-290 corridor and TX-71 corridor from Austin toward Houston.

There's just not the demand there to upgrade both corridors to full interstate standards. Expressway, free flow? Maybe. But only one of the corridors actually needs to be limited access the whole way.

[yakra]

Portland, Oregon....not Portland, Maine.

One time several years ago a band from outtastate was doing a show at the Space Gallery. Trying to get the crowd all pumped up before their set, they started excitedly saying how they'd checked the city out and how "Portland Maine is way cooler than Portland!"

I booed them.
Loudly.

[Thegeet]

Do y'all think Austin could use an interstate connection to Houston? I would personally prefer most of the US-290 corridor if so.

Austin is more than big enough a city to justify a direct East-West Interstate quality connection to metro Houston. With as much rapid growth continuing to happen in the Austin region it might become necessary to upgrade both the US-290 corridor and TX-71 corridor from Austin toward Houston.

There's just not the demand there to upgrade both corridors to full interstate standards. Expressway, free flow? Maybe. But only one of the corridors actually needs to be limited access the whole way.

Let's say it was made interstate. Would it have to pair up with I-35 still?

[Thegeet]

I realize tearing down any freeway is a sensitive subject. It sometimes makes sense because they're relatively useless stubs like the Park Freeway in Milwaukee or the east end of the Gardner Freeway in Toronto. I don't think tearing down I-345 falls under that category and I've a feeling several here feel the same way. Note: There are a few threads on I-345 (like here, and here, and here) but they are either a different focus or old.

I don't have a dog in this fight since I don't live in Texas. I follow some urbanist blogs because of my mass transit interests. Sometimes they have good ideas and sometimes it's like reading the anti-FritzOwl. This seems to me the latter, especially the belief that 16K-18K vehicles per hour will magically use surface streets through the area like nothing changed.

Removing the "Spur"  hurts the chances of I-45 being extended. Also, it would be really bad for Dallas.

[sprjus4]

Do y'all think Austin could use an interstate connection to Houston? I would personally prefer most of the US-290 corridor if so.

Austin is more than big enough a city to justify a direct East-West Interstate quality connection to metro Houston. With as much rapid growth continuing to happen in the Austin region it might become necessary to upgrade both the US-290 corridor and TX-71 corridor from Austin toward Houston.

There's just not the demand there to upgrade both corridors to full interstate standards. Expressway, free flow? Maybe. But only one of the corridors actually needs to be limited access the whole way.

Let's say it was made interstate. Would it have to pair up with I-35 still?

What do you mean?