Dallas: 'CityMAP' study looks at freeways in downtown area

[txstateends]

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/20151005-citymap-planners-envision-future-of-downtown-dallas-aging-highways.ece
http://dall­ascitymap.com/

Hope it's not more of the same usual-suspects stuff (what to do with I-345, deck parks, wanting to fix mistakes of the past, etcetc)... lots of dreams, not so much in the piggy bank.

I'd like to get excited about articles like this, but more often than not, it ends up being an I'll-know-it-when-I-see-it situation.

[MaxConcrete]

The diagram in the news article is somewhat reassuring. The only freeway at risk is I-345, and we already knew that. Planned widening of I-35E could also be reviewed, but there's no risk to the existing freeway.

For the other freeways, it seems like they're focusing on the cost and effort needed to add more deck parks. I think deck parks will be needed to get political support for the widening of I-30 through the canyon and east of downtown.

I am somewhat concerned about the diagram item for the Southern Gateway, "How to lower Interstate 35E south of downtown so a deck park could tie together North and East Oak Cliff." That project is poised to move forward soon, maybe in 2017. If they need to redesign it for a deck park, that could cause a substantial delay. I also think it would be a waste of money to build a deck park at that location, because the surrounding areas are mostly rundown and not good candidates for urban renewal.

[txstateends]

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20151008-residents-want-more-deck-parks-better-neighborhood-connectivity.ece

A public meeting was held last night regarding CityMAP at a magnet school near downtown.  The article specifically mentions pedestrian connections and additional deck park(s) were among the concerns discussed.  The likely reason deck park issues were brought up was probably due to the popularity of the Klyde Warren deck park over Woodall Rodgers freeway.

[Revive 755]

Dusting off this thread . . .

The draft report has been posted and is available as an 88 Mb pdf from http://dallascitymap.com/results.html#home

One of the scenarios includes not only removing I-345, but also truncating I-45 to end at Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard.

[TXtoNJ]

Dusting off this thread . . .

The draft report has been posted and is available as an 88 Mb pdf from http://dallascitymap.com/results.html#home

One of the scenarios includes not only removing I-345, but also truncating I-45 to end at Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard.

If they did truncate I-45, I would hope they'd end the designation at I-20, and either extend 75 through downtown again to I-20 (following Cesar Chavez/Good Latimer to the Schepps Freeway), or extend it as a spur (new I-345?) from I-20. Do not like the idea of a 2di ending at a surface street on both ends, though.

[longhorn]

http://dallascitymap.com/CityMAP%20Document_compressed2.pdf

Still do not know where the  through traffic on I-345 to I-45 will go if I-345 is torn down. Have signs state to take I-635 north and south of the city?

Rerouting of I-30 makes sense though and if they do , that will necessitate tearing down I-345 and sections of old I-30. But is it a good idea to have the rerouted I-30 follow a flood plain?

[The Ghostbuster]

The tear-down-the-freeway crowd don't care where the existing traffic goes. For all they care, it can go to H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks.

[Bobby5280]

Rerouting of I-30 makes sense though and if they do , that will necessitate tearing down I-345 and sections of old I-30. But is it a good idea to have the rerouted I-30 follow a flood plain?

Hell no. All it takes for proponents of such an idea to wake up to reality is an actual flood that puts a very high traffic highway underwater. Once they live through such a thing their perspective will change. Unfortunately a lot of people have to learn lessons the hard way.

The Lawton, OK area was hit with major flash flooding this past Sunday. A severe storm complex dumped between 6" to 10" of rain on the city. I-44 was closed for some time; many other streets and roads were closed longer. Some neighborhoods were badly affected. 9 counties in Oklahoma are under a state of emergency because of the flooding. None of this registered so much as a blip in the news nationally.

Downtown Dallas could get hit with the same kinds of stubborn, slow moving storms. It has had remnants of hurricanes move through the area.

The tear-down-the-freeway crowd don't care where the existing traffic goes. For all they care, it can go to H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks.

The tear-down-the-freeway crowd just can't bother to imagine any possible consequences of removing a 10 lane freeway. I can imagine a scenario where the removal causes horrible grid-lock level traffic jams on the surface streets followed by a general avoidance of that part of downtown after everyone adjusts their driving habits. How are businesses in those zones going to deal with that? One thing the existing traffic carries is potential customers. If those customers are pushed to the city's perimeter due to traffic re-routing it more business will go out there as well.

I'm all for either hiding freeways under parks or taking other steps to beautify them. But removing them entirely is asking for trouble. It's of vital importance for people and commerce to move through high traffic areas efficiently. That's better for business.

[Anthony_JK]

The basic essential idiocy that drives the "Freeways to Boulevards" crowd is to make driving so offensive and crowded that people will willingly throw out their cars and switch to transit and infill inner city urbanism. Never mind that removing basic core freeway corridors will only make the traffic flow, noise, and physical barriers to neighborhoods even worse...it's all about bashing cars and the people who use them.

Do these people understand that for major cities, downtown business districts are not designed solely for their benefit? Dallas is a major metropolitan complex that serves an entire vast region; it should not be reduced to the mentality of a small town where everything is within walkable reach.

Also...the simple "Well, they should just go around the city through a beltway" mentality? Great...just let your best opportunities for growth pass you by while all the money goes right to the suburbs. I thought New Urbanists hated sprawling, uncontrolled growth??

I am all for providing alternative transportation modes to relieve the pressure on highways and freeways. Removing freeways just for the sake of someone's dislike? Hell to the no.

[noelbotevera]

Not only that, but plans to tear down I-345 were as recent as 2014. Also, I-345 is not going anywhere. It was repaired last September, and they aren't letting that money go to waste. I don't really want to waste $30 million.

The next problem here is that Dallas is mostly car-oriented. Major highways like US 75, I-35E, I-635, etc. were all built prior to the revolts of the 1970s. Even during the 1970s, people never complained whenever Dallas tried to do something like building another freeway. Besides, they had the Trinity Canal, and look where that got them...yeah, pork barrel.

Also, you're tearing down your own regional connection to downtown. 

Not only that, but there was also the Woodall Rogers freeway extension in 2012. Klyde Warren Park was constructed and was an instant hit, and the Hunt Hill Bridge became a prominent part of the skyline. No freeways got removed.

I don't see why they're removing the S.M Wright freeway for a dumb urban boulevard, so don't do the same fate to I-345! Just put it under a deck park or modify or something, I don't wanna see it go to waste.

If anyone complains, I've been interested with DFW Metroplex freeway projects. I know somebody is gonna complain about my lack of knowledge.

[The Ghostbuster]

Wasn't the S.M. Wright freeway to be downgraded because the US 175 freeway is to be extended westward to have a direct connection with Interstate 45?

[rantanamo]

I-30 through the flood plain would be elevated.  It would pretty much be a win as it would go through no neighborhoods.   Completely different situation from the Trinity Tollroad scenario.

I-345 may very well go somewhere.  I live in East Dallas, and what I would call I-345 is basically run-off area from traffic on US 75, Woodall Rogers and I-30.  Otherwise its simply not that busy.  Compare it to the traffic on the other 3 sides of downtown and that's basically all it is.  The thru lanes are easily the least busy part of that highway by a huge margin.  If anything , the long ramps that got directly to Live Oak are the busiest part of it.  If they tore down the thru lanes and simply had that part meaning 1 traffic light for thru traffic, I think almost no one in the metroplex would notice. 


I think its disingenuous to dismiss the wants of people in the city, that understand the traffic patterns and what works for their city beyond just numbers.

[txstateends]

Wasn't the S.M. Wright freeway to be downgraded because the US 175 freeway is to be extended westward to have a direct connection with Interstate 45?

Yes.  It was slightly delayed by a couple of factors, but preps are on again.

[txstateends]

Not only that, but plans to tear down I-345 were as recent as 2014. Also, I-345 is not going anywhere. It was repaired last September, and they aren't letting that money go to waste. I don't really want to waste $30 million.

The next problem here is that Dallas is mostly car-oriented. Major highways like US 75, I-35E, I-635, etc. were all built prior to the revolts of the 1970s. Even during the 1970s, people never complained whenever Dallas tried to do something like building another freeway. Besides, they had the Trinity Canal, and look where that got them...yeah, pork barrel.

Also, you're tearing down your own regional connection to downtown. 

Not only that, but there was also the Woodall Rogers freeway extension in 2012. Klyde Warren Park was constructed and was an instant hit, and the Hunt Hill Bridge became a prominent part of the skyline. No freeways got removed.

I don't see why they're removing the S.M Wright freeway for a dumb urban boulevard, so don't do the same fate to I-345! Just put it under a deck park or modify or something, I don't wanna see it go to waste.

If anyone complains, I've been interested with DFW Metroplex freeway projects. I know somebody is gonna complain about my lack of knowledge.

Leaving Dead Man's Curve without fixing it is dumber, IMO.  Once the new connection to I-45 is done, there won't be much reason for S.M. Wright to be a freeway.

[Bobby5280]

I-30 through the flood plain would be elevated.  It would pretty much be a win as it would go through no neighborhoods. Completely different situation from the Trinity Tollroad scenario.

I got to looking at the Trinity River basin and downtown Dallas area. I'm confused about this concept of routing I-30 "through the flood plain." I don't see any other available path for I-30 to follow East through downtown other than the space it currently occupies. I assume following the flood plains means going alongside the Trinity River. That doesn't go East. Regarding elevating a new I-30 highway, elevated structures only seem to invite angry complaints from the NIMBY horde.

I think its disingenuous to dismiss the wants of people in the city, that understand the traffic patterns and what works for their city beyond just numbers.

That all depends on the freeway getting down-graded to a surface boulevard. If the road in question has only local interest then it should be up to the locals what happens to it. If the road in question is major link to an overall larger system then others should have their say on it (especially if state & federal funding is involved in the construction plan).

I have no problem with the S.M. Wright Freeway being demolished in favor of an urban boulevard since there are plans for C.F. Hawn Freeway (US-175) to be extended into I-45. When finished the same kind of I-45 to US-175 freeway to freeway quality connection will still be available.

As for tearing down North Central Expressway between I-30 and the Woodall Rogers Freeway, that's just plain nuts. North Central Expressway and US-75 North of Dallas going into Oklahoma is a high traffic route. If anything the I-45 designation could justifiably be applied on US-75 clear to the Red River. From that point US-69 joins US-75 for a stretch and an insane amount of truck traffic follows US-69 to Big Cabin, OK. That should be I-45 as well.

[The Ghostbuster]

I don't think Interstate 345 should be torn down. If it was an underutilized spur, that would be one thing. But since it's a freeway that sees traffic counts of 160,000 cars a day, only a fool would want to tear it down without a traffic migration plan.

[TXtoNJ]

I don't think Interstate 345 should be torn down. If it was an underutilized spur, that would be one thing. But since it's a freeway that sees traffic counts of 160,000 cars a day, only a fool would want to tear it down without a traffic migration plan.

Read the document. There's a comprehensive traffic migration study in there. The impact wouldn't be as huge as you might think - most people in Dallas are going on I-45 for one purpose, to get to Houston. Most people coming up from Houston would be served just as well by taking LBJ around to North Dallas, or are headed downtown anyway.

Taking LBJ or 12 all the way around, or 35E to 635, wouldn't substantially extend that trip.

[The Ghostbuster]

I still don't think it should be completely removed. If they must get rid of the elevated highway, put it in a tunnel.

[Revive 755]

Read the document. There's a comprehensive traffic migration study in there. The impact wouldn't be as huge as you might think - most people in Dallas are going on I-45 for one purpose, to get to Houston.

Part of the study shows a decent amount going from I-45 to the US 75 freeway via I-345 and a decent amount also going to the US 75 freeway via I-345 from the US 175 corridor.

The report also notes that the there is "an assumption of mode shift to transit using bus only lanes on the arterials," and that the removal would do a good job of upping congestion on other routes, particuarly the arterials that would have to handle traffic that used to use I-45 and I-345.

[txstateends]

I-30 through the flood plain would be elevated.  It would pretty much be a win as it would go through no neighborhoods. Completely different situation from the Trinity Tollroad scenario.

I got to looking at the Trinity River basin and downtown Dallas area. I'm confused about this concept of routing I-30 "through the flood plain." I don't see any other available path for I-30 to follow East through downtown other than the space it currently occupies. I assume following the flood plains means going alongside the Trinity River. That doesn't go East. [...]

According to the drawing illustrating the relocation version, I-30 would turn south at the S-curve that goes over Samuell near the Ferguson exit, go along the lowlands of White Rock Creek, then turn back west at US 175 where Second Ave. turns off, then use US 175's routing west (including the upcoming new I-45 connection) (it wasn't specific, but it sounds like the plan would take out US 175 west of Second), then follow the east side of the Trinity River up to the mixmaster/horseshoe.  Both the Trinity and White Rock Creek are capable of flooding.

The reroute idea is just too convoluted IMO.  It would take all of I-30's and US 80's incoming traffic, combine it with US 175's incoming traffic, then if I-45 is truncated (because there would no longer be an I-30 or I-345-to-US 75 connection farther north) then its incoming traffic would be included--as many as 3 or 4 highways' worth of traffic would be aimed straight at the mixmaster/horseshoe, creating a terrible chokepoint.

Another disadvantage to the I-30 reroute: no more close freeway access to Fair Park, especially during State Fairs and football games.  The nearest side streets would have to take on the thousands that attend events there.

Having a sunken I-30 by Fair Park (as well as the I-345 section east of downtown) would work just fine IMO.  Less cost, less time to wait for improvements, and aesthetically pleasing to those who think elevated freeways are nothing better than brick walls (although those who are thinking development/landgrab still wouldn't be happy, but oh well too bad--there are other spots in town where they can take their construction cranes).