AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: roadcrazed on August 08, 2013, 03:57:12 PM

Title: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: roadcrazed on August 08, 2013, 03:57:12 PM
I know it's a bit of an old topic, but I haven't heard anything new about it recently. What do you guys think should be done about I-345 in downtown Dallas connecting I-45 and Highway 75? It's in pretty bad shape and TxDOT is deciding whether to continue repairing it or replace it entirely. There's a few people that think it should just be torn down and possibly replaced with an an urban boulevard. I wrote a blog post about it here (http://www.roadcrazed.com/should-we-tear-down-urban-freeways/). I'd love to hear some other opinions about it.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: txstateends on August 08, 2013, 07:50:58 PM
If any of the municipalities/other govt. big-wigs have any luck with extending I-45 farther north (a-la what's going on now with I-69 and possibly others since the change has been made in the process about how interstates can be designated/placed/signed on interstate-quality freeways) then it would be tough to make the logical first steps of a possible I-45 extension into a street and putting all that traffic onto the other parts of the downtown freeway loop.  If anything is done, it should be done like what US 75 was re-done as north of downtown, below grade (except for the interchanges at I-30 and at Woodall Rodgers, of course).  That way, traffic still flows, and the visual barrier would be gone between downtown and Deep Ellum.  But, that cost thing....
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: MaxConcrete on August 08, 2013, 08:58:17 PM
I know it's a bit of an old topic, but I haven't heard anything new about it recently.
In my view, the reason you have not heard anything about the removal idea is because anyone who has any sense realizes that the freeway must remain - it is critical to the functioning of the North Texas freeway system. That is why no political officials and no one with any influence has endorsed the idea. Not even Angela Hunt (as far as I know).

That still leaves the option of sinking the freeway in a trench or placing it in a tunnel similar to the Klyde Warren Park tunnel on Woodall Rodgers. Of course, that that will be very expensive compared to repairing or even replacing the existing elevated structure. With the lack of funds available, the only realistic option is the least expensive option. My perception is that Project Pegasus (http://www.projectpegasus.org/) is next in line for funding in terms of downtown improvements. Project Pegasus is billion-plus project and it is not funded, so I don't see anything major happening on Interstate 345 unless is becomes unsafe.

Anyways, architects always want to remove freeways, especially elevated freeways. That crowd in Dallas should be satisfied with the planned removal of S.M. Wright Freeway.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: Revive 755 on April 07, 2014, 08:22:50 PM
Recent article on the subject of removing the US 75 freeway on the east side of the Dallas CBD:
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/20140403-transportation-official-i-345-debate-missing-voices-of-people-who-use-it.ece (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/20140403-transportation-official-i-345-debate-missing-voices-of-people-who-use-it.ece)
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: rantanamo on April 08, 2014, 03:56:23 AM
why is it a critical part of the north texas freeway system.  I personally experience this freeway segment daily, and IMO its merely a dumping ground for traffic that backs up going onto I-30 east and west.  There is hardly any thru traffic at all.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: Henry on April 08, 2014, 02:24:08 PM
If any of the municipalities/other govt. big-wigs have any luck with extending I-45 farther north (a-la what's going on now with I-69 and possibly others since the change has been made in the process about how interstates can be designated/placed/signed on interstate-quality freeways) then it would be tough to make the logical first steps of a possible I-45 extension into a street and putting all that traffic onto the other parts of the downtown freeway loop.  If anything is done, it should be done like what US 75 was re-done as north of downtown, below grade (except for the interchanges at I-30 and at Woodall Rodgers, of course).  That way, traffic still flows, and the visual barrier would be gone between downtown and Deep Ellum.  But, that cost thing....
I totally agree, the US 75 freeway must stay as part of the potential I-45 extension that is widely discussed in roadgeek circles. I don't care what's done to it, as long as it remains what it is today.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: Revive 755 on April 08, 2014, 08:10:36 PM
why is it a critical part of the north texas freeway system.  I personally experience this freeway segment daily, and IMO its merely a dumping ground for traffic that backs up going onto I-30 east and west.  There is hardly any thru traffic at all.

The lowest ADT on the facility is 149,000 per the DOT's ADT map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/traffic_counts/2012/dal_base.pdf); highly doubtful that all of that is destined just for downtown.  And since when would traffic going from US 75 north of the Dallas CBD to I-30 east of the CBD not qualify as 'through traffic'?
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: dfwtbear on April 08, 2014, 08:39:56 PM
Here is a good article on who uses I-345.

http://transportationblog.dallasnews.com/2014/04/where-they-come-from-where-they-go-on-i-345.html/
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: txstateends on February 10, 2015, 01:20:12 PM
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/20150210-political-action-committee-to-push-for-demolition-of-interstate-345.ece

In the latest debate over whether anything should be done about I-345, now, a new political action committee has been formed to look into doing something.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: MaxConcrete on February 10, 2015, 07:51:49 PM
In the latest debate over whether anything should be done about I-345, now, a new political action committee has been formed to look into doing something.

In my view, the formation of the PAC shows that the interests promoting the freeway removal have failed to get the needed political support. So now they need to change the political climate on Dallas City Council if they want a chance to achieve the freeway removal. So for folks who feel the freeway is a critical part of the regional freeway system and must remain in place (like me), it is good to see that the freeway has withstood the opposition so far. But the battle is ongoing, and the freeway is definitely not safe yet.
 
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: Greybear on February 13, 2015, 02:12:06 AM
I have to add my two cents worth on this topic.  As a citizen of North Texas who often makes road trips into Dallas along I-30, I believe that I-345 is a necessity.  Traffic along WB I-30 that want to continue towards I-35E NB and eventually SH 183 usually use I-345 and Spur 366 (Woodall Rodgers Frwy) to get to I-35E rather than face possible backups in the infamous Downtown Canyon and the construction zone that is known as the Dallas Mixmaster/Horseshoe Project. 

I hope that those people that want to tear down I-345 have a back-up plan for traffic around downtown Dallas or it could get very messy.

Just my thoughts on the matter...
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: txstateends on February 13, 2015, 04:23:07 AM
Plus, if and when I-45 does ever get extended north, there needs to be what is there now, or a sunken/cut-and-covered alternative, if it is to continue north.  Getting rid of the connection between Woodall Rodgers and I-30 will just make everything end up on the other remaining freeways (I-30, I-35E, Woodall Rodgers) in order to get back around to the other side.  It might *look* better to some to not have I-345 (or any future farther north version of I-45) but any real push to not have it now is about 45+ years too late IMO.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: MaxConcrete on February 13, 2015, 07:23:44 PM
The opposition is now promoting a plan to remove not only Interstate 345, but also IH-30 and IH-45.
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/morning_call/2015/02/business-leaders-form-pac-to-inject-i-345-teardown.html?s=image_gallery (http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/morning_call/2015/02/business-leaders-form-pac-to-inject-i-345-teardown.html?s=image_gallery)

I think this is so crazy that it will undermine the credibility of the group. Much of the traffic on IH-30 is originating from or going to downtown, and this plan would make that very inconvenient.

In the meantime, TxDOT is about to launch efforts for the expansion of IH-30 east of downtown. I'm thinking the IH-30 realignment option is being proposed so it will be included in the study
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/profserv/notice/18-5RFP5023.pdf (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/profserv/notice/18-5RFP5023.pdf)

(http://media.bizj.us/view/img/5044841/beforeaftermap*600xx2524-1689-48-0.jpg)

(http://media.bizj.us/view/img/5044321/dallasrisingafter-copy*600xx1314-876-0-216.jpg)
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: NE2 on February 13, 2015, 08:24:20 PM
Much of the traffic on IH-30 is originating from or going to downtown, and this plan would make that very inconvenient.
Even if this doesn't support a complete teardown, it does justify stubbing it east of downtown, with the non-downtown traffic using the bypass.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: rte66man on February 13, 2015, 10:00:39 PM
Much of the traffic on IH-30 is originating from or going to downtown, and this plan would make that very inconvenient.
Even if this doesn't support a complete teardown, it does justify stubbing it east of downtown, with the non-downtown traffic using the bypass.

So you are in favor of a discontinuous I-30?
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: TXtoNJ on February 13, 2015, 10:57:45 PM
The funny thing about those plans is that while they'd do a commendable job of reconnecting South and East Dallas to downtown, they'd almost necessitate the Trinity Parkway, or placing a 30 lane 35E/45/30 mishmash in the middle of it all.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: dfwmapper on February 14, 2015, 03:23:17 AM
One good fuel tanker fire in the middle of the north I-35E/I-30 interchange and you've just severed the entire freeway network. And that's not even counting the USACE hassles with building inside the Trinity floodplain and crossing the levee and the billions of dollars in construction since the entire thing will probably need to be elevated. And then some fucknuts will come along a few years later and want to tear it down because it obstructs views of the river. Worst idea ever.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: NE2 on February 14, 2015, 03:46:03 AM
Much of the traffic on IH-30 is originating from or going to downtown, and this plan would make that very inconvenient.
Even if this doesn't support a complete teardown, it does justify stubbing it east of downtown, with the non-downtown traffic using the bypass.

So you are in favor of a discontinuous I-30?

So you still honk your horn at geese?
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: rantanamo on February 14, 2015, 07:55:22 PM
as a resident of East Dallas, that realignment of I-30 to the south would be awesome.  Probably not happening though, with the HSR wanting its northern terminus to be near that alignment.

I will also say, the currently design makes I-345 seem so much more crowded and necessary than it is.  The left hand exits and merges cause so much crossing of traffic.  I-30's old design in the same vicinity does the same.  Just a few exit and onramp changes would make it seem so much less busy and necessary.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: txstateends on February 14, 2015, 09:26:22 PM
One good fuel tanker fire in the middle of the north I-35E/I-30 interchange and you've just severed the entire freeway network.
[...]
Worst idea ever.

Much less the truckers that flip on their sides and end up blocking multiple lanes of traffic, which seems to happen around north TX more often than tanker fires.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: dfwmapper on February 14, 2015, 10:40:19 PM
I'm thinking of that fire in 2007 that took out a few ramps at the MacArthur Maze in Oakland. They were closed for nearly a month because the fire damaged some of the steel supports. The traffic hassles it caused were no picnic, but at least there were alternate routes that didn't require going too far out of the way. Take something like that and make it happen on that new configuration and literally stop all traffic through central Dallas for a month.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: txstateends on February 15, 2015, 07:29:25 PM
There was a crash and fire at TX 183/Loop 12 by the ex-Texas Stadium lot about a month+ ago, damaging part of the TX 183 overpass.  Fortunately, it wasn't very inconvenient other than for some TX 183 traffic.  I remember hearing about a crash and fire a few years ago down at the US 175 transition between S.M. Wright and C.F. Hawn freeways; it was right at the curve and underneath the NB TX 310 overpass.  That one was much worse, all the 175 traffic that day had to use service roads and side streets to get around the wreck, and the TX 310 overpass had to be rebuilt because of the effects of the fire.

It's clear that the anti-345 folks don't really understand what they are asking for (and definitely will get) when they want such a dramatic freeway change such as this.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 15, 2015, 10:57:26 PM
There was a crash and fire at TX 183/Loop 12 by the ex-Texas Stadium lot about a month+ ago, damaging part of the TX 183 overpass.  Fortunately, it wasn't very inconvenient other than for some TX 183 traffic.  I remember hearing about a crash and fire a few years ago down at the US 175 transition between S.M. Wright and C.F. Hawn freeways; it was right at the curve and underneath the NB TX 310 overpass.  That one was much worse, all the 175 traffic that day had to use service roads and side streets to get around the wreck, and the TX 310 overpass had to be rebuilt because of the effects of the fire.

It's clear that the anti-345 folks don't really understand what they are asking for (and definitely will get) when they want such a dramatic freeway change such as this.

Oh, I disagree...I think they understand perfectly what they want. They want to make highway travel so restrictive and automobile use so hellish that people then are forced to convert to their New Urbanism "vision" of surface boulevards/bikeways/streetcars/light rail.

I'm not opposed per se to more alternative means of public transportation to relieve freeway congestion...but tearing down perfectly useful freeways just to build more highrises merely for more gentrification? Sheer madness.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: rantanamo on February 16, 2015, 01:24:57 PM
There was a crash and fire at TX 183/Loop 12 by the ex-Texas Stadium lot about a month+ ago, damaging part of the TX 183 overpass.  Fortunately, it wasn't very inconvenient other than for some TX 183 traffic.  I remember hearing about a crash and fire a few years ago down at the US 175 transition between S.M. Wright and C.F. Hawn freeways; it was right at the curve and underneath the NB TX 310 overpass.  That one was much worse, all the 175 traffic that day had to use service roads and side streets to get around the wreck, and the TX 310 overpass had to be rebuilt because of the effects of the fire.

It's clear that the anti-345 folks don't really understand what they are asking for (and definitely will get) when they want such a dramatic freeway change such as this.

Oh, I disagree...I think they understand perfectly what they want. They want to make highway travel so restrictive and automobile use so hellish that people then are forced to convert to their New Urbanism "vision" of surface boulevards/bikeways/streetcars/light rail.

I'm not opposed per se to more alternative means of public transportation to relieve freeway congestion...but tearing down perfectly useful freeways just to build more highrises merely for more gentrification? Sheer madness.

Its not madness.  As built, the downtown freeway system is highly inefficient for transportation needs with many ridiculous left hand exits and onramps and creates large blight below.  Its useful because its there.  The fact that TxDOT is even listening should tell you something.

Besides, Dallas has a right to protect its city and not just be a slave to the interests of those outside of it.  There are better alternatives to how it is currently built and TxDOT is wisely going to explore those options as the structure is old and inefficient as far as their needs go.  A cut and cover tunnel would be awesome and serve the needs of both.  Getting rid of the exits and onramps that feed I-345 downtown would be a great start.  This should be at most a narrow, 4 lane thru traffic road.  Everything else backs it up needlessly.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 16, 2015, 02:14:07 PM
Upgrading the existing system to remove inefficiencies (left turn exits, for example) and replacing elevated viaducts with depressed/cut-and-cover tunnels, I have no problem with.


Those supporting this plan, though, don't want that; they want to totally remove these major freeways and either replace them with surface boulevards or simply re-route the traffic on already burdened existing freeways...all because "we don't like cars and freeways contaminating our gentrification efforts".


They are the mad ones, not you.


Note that that comment was directed at the "Tear 'em down!!!" advocates, not TxDOT.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 16, 2015, 04:48:14 PM
Interstate 345 never should have existed. It should always either been a part of Interstate 45 or a part of US 75. Or maybe a spur from Interstate 30 (or Interstate 20 when it went through Dallas and Fort Worth).
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: NE2 on February 16, 2015, 04:58:05 PM
either replace them with surface boulevards or simply re-route the traffic on already burdened existing freeways
Obviously you didn't look at the plan.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: mrsman on February 16, 2015, 06:53:05 PM
I'm not from Dallas, so excuse my ignorance, but how could getting rid of this freeway make any sense?  This isn't a spur route that simply connects to a surface street.  Rather, this is a key connector from US 75 to I-30 east and I-45.

Are people supposed to just go around teh north-west-and south sides of the Downtown freeway loop?  Just keep the freeway loop open on all sides.

Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: rte66man on February 16, 2015, 08:49:03 PM
Much of the traffic on IH-30 is originating from or going to downtown, and this plan would make that very inconvenient.
Even if this doesn't support a complete teardown, it does justify stubbing it east of downtown, with the non-downtown traffic using the bypass.

So you are in favor of a discontinuous I-30?

So you still honk your horn at geese?

And you never answered the question.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: NE2 on February 16, 2015, 09:25:45 PM
You never asked a meaningful question.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: lordsutch on February 16, 2015, 09:36:59 PM
The existing roads are a mess, but at the same time they're pretty essential and unlike (say) New Orleans through traffic needs to pass through the downtown area, particularly off-peak. Plus I'm not at all sure that the people in the way of a rerouted I-30 deserve to have the problem dumped in their laps (it looks like a lot of that corridor is parkland or wetlands already, making it a non-starter).

I tend to agree with the idea of capping I-345/US 75, like was done with the Woodall Rodgers, and fixing the mess of an interchange at I-30 and I-35E. Heck, those can then be capped too.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: NE2 on February 16, 2015, 09:47:20 PM
Plus I'm not at all sure that the people in the way of a rerouted I-30 deserve to have the problem dumped in their laps (it looks like a lot of that corridor is parkland or wetlands already, making it a non-starter).
It's a railroad with mostly industrial zoning to the southeast and southwest. The wetlands can be bridged (or replaced with new wetlands elsewhere).
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: lordsutch on February 16, 2015, 10:03:23 PM
It's a railroad with mostly industrial zoning to the southeast and southwest. The wetlands can be bridged (or replaced with new wetlands elsewhere).

West of the railroad is at least one park; looks like you'd have to thread I-30 between the park and a lake, and maintain the railroad. South of Scyne you have at least one neighborhood (likely with EJ issues, although I'd have to pull census maps to be sure), then more neighborhoods near where you'd need to tie into I-45 or US 175 or Trinity River Parkway.

Not saying it's impossible but burying the thing after removing some ramps would probably be simpler. Even if burying it between I-45 and Fair Park is too hard, due to part of the DART depot (I think) being under the existing highway, you could still remove the ramps to/from 1st/2nd Ave and Exposition and improve the connectivity for pedestrians (and improve traffic flow on I-30) for cheap. West of I-45, it's already depressed, so capping it wouldn't be hard.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 17, 2015, 02:34:53 AM
either replace them with surface boulevards or simply re-route the traffic on already burdened existing freeways
Obviously you didn't look at the plan.

Actually I did, and it still sucks. To each his own, I guess.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: MaxConcrete on September 11, 2015, 10:16:55 PM
TxDOT received bids (actually, one bid) earlier this month for repairs to I-345. The bid of $30.5 million was vastly lower than the $184.5 million budgeted for the project.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/20150910-i-345-repairs-cost-a-fraction-of-what-txdot-budgeted.ece (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/20150910-i-345-repairs-cost-a-fraction-of-what-txdot-budgeted.ece)

Bid
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/09033201.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/09033201.htm)

Obviously the scope of work is much less than originally anticipated. It is not clear to me if this work is a long-term fix or a short-term fix, since the long-term future of the structure remains an item for discussion because anti-freeway interests want it removed. I'm assuming these repairs should be good for at least 15 years.

My prediction is that the surplus funds will be redirected to the soon-to-begin Southern Gateway project, or maybe the I-635 east expansion.

Quote
I-345 repairs cost a fraction of what TxDOT budgeted

Fixing the aging and cracked Interstate 345 on downtown Dallas’ eastern edge will cost roughly one-sixth of what Texas Department of Transportation officials budgeted for the project.

TxDOT Dallas district engineer Kelly Selman announced Thursday that fixing the elevated highway connecting Central Expressway and Interstate 45 will cost about $30.5 million — a far cry from the $184.5 million budgeted.
...
Selman said the budgeted amount was for a worst-case scenario. Engineers determined after studying the road’s condition that they will have to strengthen the bridge’s support but won’t have to replace pillars or large sections of it.

“It’s just going to be a repair,” Selman said.
...
The political action group Coalition for a New Dallas hopes [the leftover] money will be set aside for the group’s chief goal: tearing down I-345 to free up undeveloped and underdeveloped land between downtown and Deep Ellum.
..
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 15, 2015, 05:26:27 PM
Interstate 345 should remain. The freeways should be brought up to modern design standards.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: OCGuy81 on September 22, 2015, 05:01:19 PM
Sure it's been asked before, but what's the point of I-345?  Couldn't the 45 designation just be extended another mile north?
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: TXtoNJ on September 22, 2015, 05:38:49 PM
Sure it's been asked before, but what's the point of I-345?  Couldn't the 45 designation just be extended another mile north?

- Desire to end I-45 at another interstate (I-30), especially since it does not connect to another interstate in Galveston
- US 75 used to follow Central Expy and Pearl Expy streets in downtown Dallas. There was a gap between where I-45 met I-30 and where the old Central Expressway began (you can actually see some of the original roadway as the ramp from downtown Dallas).
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 06, 2016, 08:17:05 PM
Is the plan to tear down 345 still an active proposal?
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 07, 2016, 01:02:34 AM
Extend I-45 to Big Cabin, Oklahoma at the junction of I-44. That's my take on it. Screw all this tear down the freeways to make way for hipsters on bicycles smelling of patchouli nonsense. We're still a very car oriented nation. There is no way of getting around that. I'm not riding my bicycle from Lawton to freaking Oklahoma City just to have some fun. This isn't the 1800's where you make a month of a trip like that! Damn.

Tearing down freeways in Dallas (or Houston) seems really crazy. I can sort of understand the logic with the I-45 tear down plan in downtown Houston. They're going to beef up the freeway on the back side of downtown in response. I see no case of this happening with downtown Dallas. What is going to make up for removing a big chunk of I-45? It's really going to suck if I-45 ends at I-30 and the link the North Central Expressway turns into some traffic jammed bottle-neck at-grade boulevard. That would remove any chance of extending I-45 from its current downtown Dallas terminus North into Oklahoma. Believe me, that corridor along US-75 and US-69 up to Big Cabin needs to be Interstate quality. The truck traffic on that corridor is insane.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 07, 2016, 05:33:45 PM
That's all well and good Bobby5280, but I was looking for a yes/no answer to my question.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: andy3175 on July 08, 2016, 12:40:27 AM
Is the plan to tear down 345 still an active proposal?

Yes. http://www.anewdallas.com/
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: MaxConcrete on October 17, 2017, 02:08:13 PM
It looks like efforts are about to begin to plan for trenching or tunneling I-345.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/10/17/dallas-might-ready-bury-downtown-highway-time (https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/10/17/dallas-might-ready-bury-downtown-highway-time)

My view is that it is critical to keep I-345 in place, and trenching/tunneling is probably the only way to keep it due to the increasingly anti-freeway Dallas City Council. By getting the wheels in motion for trenching/tunneling, it assures that the freeway will be retained, even if anti-freeway extremists like councilman Philip Kingston gain more power. (He could become mayor.)

With the massive freeway expansion plans around DFW, funds are already allocated all through the 2020s so we're probably looking at the 2030s for this project, unless some big new funding becomes available.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 17, 2017, 05:25:33 PM
To me, trenching or tunneling Interstate 345 would make a lot sense than getting rid of it entirely. It is a needed connection. But how much would such a project cost? And what would the right-of-way impacts be?
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: TXtoNJ on October 18, 2017, 12:51:39 PM
Elevated freeways simply don't make sense within urban cores, if those cores are to serve any purpose other than commuter traffic. This is a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: silverback1065 on October 18, 2017, 05:34:56 PM
SR 366 should be signed as 345, and 45 should be extended to the state line with OK.  also people who are anti freeway are usually the people who only seem to live downtown or near enough to downtown to bike or bus everywhere.  i haven't seen any anti freeway suburbanites that have to commute downtown regularly. 
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: sparker on October 19, 2017, 04:12:08 AM
It looks like efforts are about to begin to plan for trenching or tunneling I-345.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/10/17/dallas-might-ready-bury-downtown-highway-time (https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/10/17/dallas-might-ready-bury-downtown-highway-time)

My view is that it is critical to keep I-345 in place, and trenching/tunneling is probably the only way to keep it due to the increasingly anti-freeway Dallas City Council. By getting the wheels in motion for trenching/tunneling, it assures that the freeway will be retained, even if anti-freeway extremists like councilman Philip Kingston gain more power. (He could become mayor.)

With the massive freeway expansion plans around DFW, funds are already allocated all through the 2020s so we're probably looking at the 2030s for this project, unless some big new funding becomes available.

The tunnel/cut-&-cover concept seems to be the most workable from a regional standpoint.  While Mr. Kennedy and others may not be satisfied until mobility itself is vanquished, the simple fact is that I-345 is an integral part of the overall Dallas transportation network and needs to be preserved -- and the basic aims of urban connectivity can be achieved by trenching/tunneling the freeway, providing a "city commons" approach to the use of the "lid".  It's pretty much a "win/win" situation for all but those whose aim is to consign the driving public to a "loser" category.   Central Dallas wouldn't be much of an attraction without all those folks coming in from Plano, Frisco, and the other "burbs". 
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: TXtoNJ on October 19, 2017, 01:57:30 PM
SR 366 should be signed as 345, and 45 should be extended to the state line with OK.  also people who are anti freeway are usually the people who only seem to live downtown or near enough to downtown to bike or bus everywhere.  i haven't seen any anti freeway suburbanites that have to commute downtown regularly. 

Yeah, turns out the people who bear a disproportionate weight of costs relative to benefits don't like the freeway so much. Who knew?

And 35W should be renumbered to plain 35, 35E South, 366 and 75 North to I-135, and 45 should be duplexed with 30 and sent up to Denton on 35E north.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: kphoger on October 19, 2017, 02:00:29 PM
Extend I-45 to Big Cabin, Oklahoma at the junction of I-44. That's my take on it. Screw all this tear down the freeways to make way for hipsters on bicycles smelling of patchouli nonsense. We're still a very car oriented nation. There is no way of getting around that. I'm not riding my bicycle from Lawton to freaking Oklahoma City just to have some fun. This isn't the 1800's where you make a month of a trip like that! Damn.

Tearing down freeways in Dallas (or Houston) seems really crazy. I can sort of understand the logic with the I-45 tear down plan in downtown Houston. They're going to beef up the freeway on the back side of downtown in response. I see no case of this happening with downtown Dallas. What is going to make up for removing a big chunk of I-45? It's really going to suck if I-45 ends at I-30 and the link the North Central Expressway turns into some traffic jammed bottle-neck at-grade boulevard. That would remove any chance of extending I-45 from its current downtown Dallas terminus North into Oklahoma. Believe me, that corridor along US-75 and US-69 up to Big Cabin needs to be Interstate quality. The truck traffic on that corridor is insane.

Wow.  Just....wow.

I actually don't refuse to drive somewhere just because there's no Interstate to get me there.  Weird, I know.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: silverback1065 on October 19, 2017, 02:03:14 PM
Extend I-45 to Big Cabin, Oklahoma at the junction of I-44. That's my take on it. Screw all this tear down the freeways to make way for hipsters on bicycles smelling of patchouli nonsense. We're still a very car oriented nation. There is no way of getting around that. I'm not riding my bicycle from Lawton to freaking Oklahoma City just to have some fun. This isn't the 1800's where you make a month of a trip like that! Damn.

Tearing down freeways in Dallas (or Houston) seems really crazy. I can sort of understand the logic with the I-45 tear down plan in downtown Houston. They're going to beef up the freeway on the back side of downtown in response. I see no case of this happening with downtown Dallas. What is going to make up for removing a big chunk of I-45? It's really going to suck if I-45 ends at I-30 and the link the North Central Expressway turns into some traffic jammed bottle-neck at-grade boulevard. That would remove any chance of extending I-45 from its current downtown Dallas terminus North into Oklahoma. Believe me, that corridor along US-75 and US-69 up to Big Cabin needs to be Interstate quality. The truck traffic on that corridor is insane.

Wow.  Just....wow.

I actually don't refuse to drive somewhere just because there's no Interstate to get me there.  Weird, I know.

what is the point of this comment? did anyone even insinuate this?
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: kphoger on October 19, 2017, 02:37:03 PM
Extend I-45 to Big Cabin, Oklahoma at the junction of I-44. That's my take on it. Screw all this tear down the freeways to make way for hipsters on bicycles smelling of patchouli nonsense. We're still a very car oriented nation. There is no way of getting around that. I'm not riding my bicycle from Lawton to freaking Oklahoma City just to have some fun. This isn't the 1800's where you make a month of a trip like that! Damn.

Tearing down freeways in Dallas (or Houston) seems really crazy. I can sort of understand the logic with the I-45 tear down plan in downtown Houston. They're going to beef up the freeway on the back side of downtown in response. I see no case of this happening with downtown Dallas. What is going to make up for removing a big chunk of I-45? It's really going to suck if I-45 ends at I-30 and the link the North Central Expressway turns into some traffic jammed bottle-neck at-grade boulevard. That would remove any chance of extending I-45 from its current downtown Dallas terminus North into Oklahoma. Believe me, that corridor along US-75 and US-69 up to Big Cabin needs to be Interstate quality. The truck traffic on that corridor is insane.

Wow.  Just....wow.

I actually don't refuse to drive somewhere just because there's no Interstate to get me there.  Weird, I know.

what is the point of this comment? did anyone even insinuate this?

Sorry, there.  My reading was that I-45 should be extended up to I-44 because, without that, you might as well ride your bicycle from Big Cabin to Dallas (as from Lawton to Oklahoma City).  That was my terribly socially unacceptable way of saying the highway is fine the way it is.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: silverback1065 on October 19, 2017, 04:41:43 PM
Extend I-45 to Big Cabin, Oklahoma at the junction of I-44. That's my take on it. Screw all this tear down the freeways to make way for hipsters on bicycles smelling of patchouli nonsense. We're still a very car oriented nation. There is no way of getting around that. I'm not riding my bicycle from Lawton to freaking Oklahoma City just to have some fun. This isn't the 1800's where you make a month of a trip like that! Damn.

Tearing down freeways in Dallas (or Houston) seems really crazy. I can sort of understand the logic with the I-45 tear down plan in downtown Houston. They're going to beef up the freeway on the back side of downtown in response. I see no case of this happening with downtown Dallas. What is going to make up for removing a big chunk of I-45? It's really going to suck if I-45 ends at I-30 and the link the North Central Expressway turns into some traffic jammed bottle-neck at-grade boulevard. That would remove any chance of extending I-45 from its current downtown Dallas terminus North into Oklahoma. Believe me, that corridor along US-75 and US-69 up to Big Cabin needs to be Interstate quality. The truck traffic on that corridor is insane.

Wow.  Just....wow.

I actually don't refuse to drive somewhere just because there's no Interstate to get me there.  Weird, I know.

what is the point of this comment? did anyone even insinuate this?

Sorry, there.  My reading was that I-45 should be extended up to I-44 because, without that, you might as well ride your bicycle from Big Cabin to Dallas (as from Lawton to Oklahoma City).  That was my terribly socially unacceptable way of saying the highway is fine the way it is.

i wasn't yelling at you, i was just confused by your comment. that clears it up
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: bugo on October 19, 2017, 06:56:16 PM
Interstate 345 never should have existed. It should always either been a part of Interstate 45 or a part of US 75. Or maybe a spur from Interstate 30 (or Interstate 20 when it went through Dallas and Fort Worth).

It is a part of US 75. It isn't even signed.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: bugo on October 19, 2017, 07:01:20 PM
Anybody who thinks it is a good idea to remove I-345 is either huffing bug spray, is dumb as rocks or is a car-hater who wants to make everybody's lives miserable because they are smug assholes. I've driven through there many times and traffic is bad enough how it is. Last time I was down there I got stuck in a jam going from 75/345 south to 30 east at 7:30pm. If the freeway were to be removed traffic would have been backed up to Sherman.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 20, 2017, 12:36:29 AM
Quote from: kphoger
Sorry, there.  My reading was that I-45 should be extended up to I-44 because, without that, you might as well ride your bicycle from Big Cabin to Dallas (as from Lawton to Oklahoma City).  That was my terribly socially unacceptable way of saying the highway is fine the way it is.

The current highway is not fine the way it is. The damned thing is dangerous. I've driven on a lot of highways around the US and it's easy to say US-69 from the Red River to Big Cabin has a great deal of traffic on it and far more than the usual US highway's share of semi-truck traffic. There's lots of fatalities on this route due to the at-grade intersections with what amounts to Interstate highway level traffic loads.

I really don't give a damn what number or name the road is called or if it ever carries an Interstate designation, but the fact remains that SOB of a route should be a limited access Interstate quality route from the Red River to Big Cabin and I-44. The I-45 designation would make sense though. Call it the Boaty McBoatface Route for all I care. The current route, with all its driveways and at-grade intersections sucks ass.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: sparker on October 20, 2017, 12:55:26 AM
Quote from: kphoger
Sorry, there.  My reading was that I-45 should be extended up to I-44 because, without that, you might as well ride your bicycle from Big Cabin to Dallas (as from Lawton to Oklahoma City).  That was my terribly socially unacceptable way of saying the highway is fine the way it is.

The current highway is not fine the way it is. The damned thing is dangerous. I've driven on a lot of highways around the US and it's easy to say US-69 from the Red River to Big Cabin has a great deal of traffic on it and far more than the usual US highway's share of semi-truck traffic. There's lots of fatalities on this route due to the at-grade intersections with what amounts to Interstate highway level traffic loads.

I really don't give a damn what number or name the road is called or if it ever carries an Interstate designation, but the fact remains that SOB of a route should be a limited access Interstate quality route from the Red River to Big Cabin and I-44. The I-45 designation would make sense though. Call it the Boaty McBoatface Route for all I care. The current route, with all its driveways and at-grade intersections sucks ass.

I'd venture a guess that now that I-49 is complete between I-44 and KC that a significant amount of truck traffic that would normally have been slogging through OKC on I-35 has shifted to US 69 as a mileage shortcut from DFW to KC (and vice-versa), mixing in with the traffic that traditionally used that route en route to St. Louis.  What was merely a pain in the ass (the smaller towns along the route + the Muskogee area) with the traffic levels I experienced the last time I was on the route around 2005 would be almost untenable with any substantial increase.  This is one of those regional corridors -- like US 287 between DFW and Amarillo in TX -- that would be under most circumstances a "lock" for Interstate upgrade consideration -- if it were anywhere but OK (how 287 has flown under TX radar is a mystery to me as well!)......or maybe VA!  There's even a piece of "add-on" ISTEA legislation floating around out there that actually authorizes an Interstate corridor on US 69 as far north as I-40; it's "grandfathered" in if OK ever wants to do something about it.  But I'll refrain from an assessment from the political side (as it would get flushed anyway!) and simply state that without a sea change in OKC no new Interstate projects, regardless of appropriateness, will likely happen within that state -- sad but true!   
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: Scott5114 on October 20, 2017, 06:52:44 AM
Call it the Boaty McBoatface Route for all I care.

I feel like this calls for a OTA standard turnpike marker to be created with this name. (I would do it but text on a curve is a pain in the ass.)
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: longhorn on October 20, 2017, 11:53:50 AM
Quote from: kphoger
Sorry, there.  My reading was that I-45 should be extended up to I-44 because, without that, you might as well ride your bicycle from Big Cabin to Dallas (as from Lawton to Oklahoma City).  That was my terribly socially unacceptable way of saying the highway is fine the way it is.

I-69/75 has been the go to route for trucks trying to get to I-44 from DFW for decades. Its shorter than I-35 to OKC then I-44. Of course there are going to be alot of trucks on it. No excuse OK and the federal government has not spent money on it to expand it. Or why OK has not sought to make it an interestate designation.
The current highway is not fine the way it is. The damned thing is dangerous. I've driven on a lot of highways around the US and it's easy to say US-69 from the Red River to Big Cabin has a great deal of traffic on it and far more than the usual US highway's share of semi-truck traffic. There's lots of fatalities on this route due to the at-grade intersections with what amounts to Interstate highway level traffic loads.

I really don't give a damn what number or name the road is called or if it ever carries an Interstate designation, but the fact remains that SOB of a route should be a limited access Interstate quality route from the Red River to Big Cabin and I-44. The I-45 designation would make sense though. Call it the Boaty McBoatface Route for all I care. The current route, with all its driveways and at-grade intersections sucks ass.

I'd venture a guess that now that I-49 is complete between I-44 and KC that a significant amount of truck traffic that would normally have been slogging through OKC on I-35 has shifted to US 69 as a mileage shortcut from DFW to KC (and vice-versa), mixing in with the traffic that traditionally used that route en route to St. Louis.  What was merely a pain in the ass (the smaller towns along the route + the Muskogee area) with the traffic levels I experienced the last time I was on the route around 2005 would be almost untenable with any substantial increase.  This is one of those regional corridors -- like US 287 between DFW and Amarillo in TX -- that would be under most circumstances a "lock" for Interstate upgrade consideration -- if it were anywhere but OK (how 287 has flown under TX radar is a mystery to me as well!)......or maybe VA!  There's even a piece of "add-on" ISTEA legislation floating around out there that actually authorizes an Interstate corridor on US 69 as far north as I-40; it's "grandfathered" in if OK ever wants to do something about it.  But I'll refrain from an assessment from the political side (as it would get flushed anyway!) and simply state that without a sea change in OKC no new Interstate projects, regardless of appropriateness, will likely happen within that state -- sad but true!   
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: austrini on October 25, 2017, 01:00:09 PM
Anybody who thinks it is a good idea to remove I-345 is either huffing bug spray, is dumb as rocks or is a car-hater who wants to make everybody's lives miserable because they are smug assholes. I've driven through there many times and traffic is bad enough how it is. Last time I was down there I got stuck in a jam going from 75/345 south to 30 east at 7:30pm. If the freeway were to be removed traffic would have been backed up to Sherman.

Basically everyone who lives here in the city wants it gone, and everyone who lives far away or in the exurbs and comes through here periodically to get to Houston wants it to stay. I like freeways, just not this one.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: silverback1065 on October 25, 2017, 03:31:43 PM
Anybody who thinks it is a good idea to remove I-345 is either huffing bug spray, is dumb as rocks or is a car-hater who wants to make everybody's lives miserable because they are smug assholes. I've driven through there many times and traffic is bad enough how it is. Last time I was down there I got stuck in a jam going from 75/345 south to 30 east at 7:30pm. If the freeway were to be removed traffic would have been backed up to Sherman.

Basically everyone who lives here in the city wants it gone, and everyone who lives far away or in the exurbs and comes through here periodically to get to Houston wants it to stay. I like freeways, just not this one.

Realign 45 to tie into the 30 35E mess, then have it jump back using 366.  Also, just because some in Dallas want it down isn't the sole reason it should be removed.  Dallas and its suburbs should come to an agreement!   
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: sparker on October 25, 2017, 03:43:15 PM
Anybody who thinks it is a good idea to remove I-345 is either huffing bug spray, is dumb as rocks or is a car-hater who wants to make everybody's lives miserable because they are smug assholes. I've driven through there many times and traffic is bad enough how it is. Last time I was down there I got stuck in a jam going from 75/345 south to 30 east at 7:30pm. If the freeway were to be removed traffic would have been backed up to Sherman.

Basically everyone who lives here in the city wants it gone, and everyone who lives far away or in the exurbs and comes through here periodically to get to Houston wants it to stay. I like freeways, just not this one.

Realign 45 to tie into the 30 35E mess, then have it jump back using 366.  Also, just because some in Dallas want it down isn't the sole reason it should be removed.  Dallas and its suburbs should come to an agreement!   

Or simply do what was outlined and discussed earlier and sink the MF below grade and put a park, a town square, a farmers' market, or whatever floats local boats on the top lid and let everyone have a party celebrating a win-win!  No need to think in stark black & white when so many shades of gray (50?) are available as potential solutions.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 25, 2017, 09:50:55 PM
Anybody who thinks it is a good idea to remove I-345 is either huffing bug spray, is dumb as rocks or is a car-hater who wants to make everybody's lives miserable because they are smug assholes. I've driven through there many times and traffic is bad enough how it is. Last time I was down there I got stuck in a jam going from 75/345 south to 30 east at 7:30pm. If the freeway were to be removed traffic would have been backed up to Sherman.

Basically everyone who lives here in the city wants it gone, and everyone who lives far away or in the exurbs and comes through here periodically to get to Houston wants it to stay. I like freeways, just not this one.
Just because it impacts people who live around it doesn’t mean they should get they say in removing it. Sometimes things are there for a greater good. People need to look beyond themselves and understand that others have the right to live in the suburbs, living the lifestyle that they choose while having decent connections to downtown and across the city.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: longhorn on October 26, 2017, 09:33:50 AM
Quote from: kphoger
Sorry, there.  My reading was that I-45 should be extended up to I-44 because, without that, you might as well ride your bicycle from Big Cabin to Dallas (as from Lawton to Oklahoma City).  That was my terribly socially unacceptable way of saying the highway is fine the way it is.

I-69/75 has been the go to route for trucks trying to get to I-44 from DFW for decades. Its shorter than I-35 to OKC then I-44. Of course there are going to be alot of trucks on it. No excuse OK and the federal government has not spent money on it to expand it. Or why OK has not sought to make it an interestate designation.
The current highway is not fine the way it is. The damned thing is dangerous. I've driven on a lot of highways around the US and it's easy to say US-69 from the Red River to Big Cabin has a great deal of traffic on it and far more than the usual US highway's share of semi-truck traffic. There's lots of fatalities on this route due to the at-grade intersections with what amounts to Interstate highway level traffic loads.

I really don't give a damn what number or name the road is called or if it ever carries an Interstate designation, but the fact remains that SOB of a route should be a limited access Interstate quality route from the Red River to Big Cabin and I-44. The I-45 designation would make sense though. Call it the Boaty McBoatface Route for all I care. The current route, with all its driveways and at-grade intersections sucks ass.

I'd venture a guess that now that I-49 is complete between I-44 and KC that a significant amount of truck traffic that would normally have been slogging through OKC on I-35 has shifted to US 69 as a mileage shortcut from DFW to KC (and vice-versa), mixing in with the traffic that traditionally used that route en route to St. Louis.  What was merely a pain in the ass (the smaller towns along the route + the Muskogee area) with the traffic levels I experienced the last time I was on the route around 2005 would be almost untenable with any substantial increase.  This is one of those regional corridors -- like US 287 between DFW and Amarillo in TX -- that would be under most circumstances a "lock" for Interstate upgrade consideration -- if it were anywhere but OK (how 287 has flown under TX radar is a mystery to me as well!)......or maybe VA!  There's even a piece of "add-on" ISTEA legislation floating around out there that actually authorizes an Interstate corridor on US 69 as far north as I-40; it's "grandfathered" in if OK ever wants to do something about it.  But I'll refrain from an assessment from the political side (as it would get flushed anyway!) and simply state that without a sea change in OKC no new Interstate projects, regardless of appropriateness, will likely happen within that state -- sad but true!   

I-69/75 has been the go to route for trucks trying to get to I-44 from DFW for decades. Its shorter than I-35 to OKC then I-44. Of course there are going to be alot of trucks on it. Why OK has not gone to the government and politic this route to be an interestate is beyond me.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: TXtoNJ on October 26, 2017, 10:20:42 AM
Anybody who thinks it is a good idea to remove I-345 is either huffing bug spray, is dumb as rocks or is a car-hater who wants to make everybody's lives miserable because they are smug assholes. I've driven through there many times and traffic is bad enough how it is. Last time I was down there I got stuck in a jam going from 75/345 south to 30 east at 7:30pm. If the freeway were to be removed traffic would have been backed up to Sherman.

Basically everyone who lives here in the city wants it gone, and everyone who lives far away or in the exurbs and comes through here periodically to get to Houston wants it to stay. I like freeways, just not this one.
Just because it impacts people who live around it doesn’t mean they should get they say in removing it. Sometimes things are there for a greater good. People need to look beyond themselves and understand that others have the right to live in the suburbs, living the lifestyle that they choose while having decent connections to downtown and across the city.

Suburbanites also need to recognize that they don't get to dictate the terms by which a city organizes itself. Cuts both ways.

Quote from: kphoger
Sorry, there.  My reading was that I-45 should be extended up to I-44 because, without that, you might as well ride your bicycle from Big Cabin to Dallas (as from Lawton to Oklahoma City).  That was my terribly socially unacceptable way of saying the highway is fine the way it is.

I-69/75 has been the go to route for trucks trying to get to I-44 from DFW for decades. Its shorter than I-35 to OKC then I-44. Of course there are going to be alot of trucks on it. No excuse OK and the federal government has not spent money on it to expand it. Or why OK has not sought to make it an interestate designation.
The current highway is not fine the way it is. The damned thing is dangerous. I've driven on a lot of highways around the US and it's easy to say US-69 from the Red River to Big Cabin has a great deal of traffic on it and far more than the usual US highway's share of semi-truck traffic. There's lots of fatalities on this route due to the at-grade intersections with what amounts to Interstate highway level traffic loads.

I really don't give a damn what number or name the road is called or if it ever carries an Interstate designation, but the fact remains that SOB of a route should be a limited access Interstate quality route from the Red River to Big Cabin and I-44. The I-45 designation would make sense though. Call it the Boaty McBoatface Route for all I care. The current route, with all its driveways and at-grade intersections sucks ass.

I'd venture a guess that now that I-49 is complete between I-44 and KC that a significant amount of truck traffic that would normally have been slogging through OKC on I-35 has shifted to US 69 as a mileage shortcut from DFW to KC (and vice-versa), mixing in with the traffic that traditionally used that route en route to St. Louis.  What was merely a pain in the ass (the smaller towns along the route + the Muskogee area) with the traffic levels I experienced the last time I was on the route around 2005 would be almost untenable with any substantial increase.  This is one of those regional corridors -- like US 287 between DFW and Amarillo in TX -- that would be under most circumstances a "lock" for Interstate upgrade consideration -- if it were anywhere but OK (how 287 has flown under TX radar is a mystery to me as well!)......or maybe VA!  There's even a piece of "add-on" ISTEA legislation floating around out there that actually authorizes an Interstate corridor on US 69 as far north as I-40; it's "grandfathered" in if OK ever wants to do something about it.  But I'll refrain from an assessment from the political side (as it would get flushed anyway!) and simply state that without a sea change in OKC no new Interstate projects, regardless of appropriateness, will likely happen within that state -- sad but true!   

I-69/75 has been the go to route for trucks trying to get to I-44 from DFW for decades. Its shorter than I-35 to OKC then I-44. Of course there are going to be alot of trucks on it. Why OK has not gone to the government and politic this route to be an interestate is beyond me.


Bunch of small towns on the route that don't want to be bypassed, and don't want to lose their revenue sources. Their reps have been in OKC for a long time, too.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: kphoger on October 26, 2017, 12:03:51 PM
Call it the Boaty McBoatface Route for all I care.

I feel like this calls for a OTA standard turnpike marker to be created with this name. (I would do it but text on a curve is a pain in the ass.)

Just forget the curve, then.

(https://i.imgur.com/383UUEY.png)
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: silverback1065 on October 26, 2017, 12:23:48 PM
Anybody who thinks it is a good idea to remove I-345 is either huffing bug spray, is dumb as rocks or is a car-hater who wants to make everybody's lives miserable because they are smug assholes. I've driven through there many times and traffic is bad enough how it is. Last time I was down there I got stuck in a jam going from 75/345 south to 30 east at 7:30pm. If the freeway were to be removed traffic would have been backed up to Sherman.

Basically everyone who lives here in the city wants it gone, and everyone who lives far away or in the exurbs and comes through here periodically to get to Houston wants it to stay. I like freeways, just not this one.
Just because it impacts people who live around it doesn’t mean they should get they say in removing it. Sometimes things are there for a greater good. People need to look beyond themselves and understand that others have the right to live in the suburbs, living the lifestyle that they choose while having decent connections to downtown and across the city.

Suburbanites also need to recognize that they don't get to dictate the terms by which a city organizes itself. Cuts both ways.

Quote from: kphoger
Sorry, there.  My reading was that I-45 should be extended up to I-44 because, without that, you might as well ride your bicycle from Big Cabin to Dallas (as from Lawton to Oklahoma City).  That was my terribly socially unacceptable way of saying the highway is fine the way it is.

I-69/75 has been the go to route for trucks trying to get to I-44 from DFW for decades. Its shorter than I-35 to OKC then I-44. Of course there are going to be alot of trucks on it. No excuse OK and the federal government has not spent money on it to expand it. Or why OK has not sought to make it an interestate designation.
The current highway is not fine the way it is. The damned thing is dangerous. I've driven on a lot of highways around the US and it's easy to say US-69 from the Red River to Big Cabin has a great deal of traffic on it and far more than the usual US highway's share of semi-truck traffic. There's lots of fatalities on this route due to the at-grade intersections with what amounts to Interstate highway level traffic loads.

I really don't give a damn what number or name the road is called or if it ever carries an Interstate designation, but the fact remains that SOB of a route should be a limited access Interstate quality route from the Red River to Big Cabin and I-44. The I-45 designation would make sense though. Call it the Boaty McBoatface Route for all I care. The current route, with all its driveways and at-grade intersections sucks ass.

I'd venture a guess that now that I-49 is complete between I-44 and KC that a significant amount of truck traffic that would normally have been slogging through OKC on I-35 has shifted to US 69 as a mileage shortcut from DFW to KC (and vice-versa), mixing in with the traffic that traditionally used that route en route to St. Louis.  What was merely a pain in the ass (the smaller towns along the route + the Muskogee area) with the traffic levels I experienced the last time I was on the route around 2005 would be almost untenable with any substantial increase.  This is one of those regional corridors -- like US 287 between DFW and Amarillo in TX -- that would be under most circumstances a "lock" for Interstate upgrade consideration -- if it were anywhere but OK (how 287 has flown under TX radar is a mystery to me as well!)......or maybe VA!  There's even a piece of "add-on" ISTEA legislation floating around out there that actually authorizes an Interstate corridor on US 69 as far north as I-40; it's "grandfathered" in if OK ever wants to do something about it.  But I'll refrain from an assessment from the political side (as it would get flushed anyway!) and simply state that without a sea change in OKC no new Interstate projects, regardless of appropriateness, will likely happen within that state -- sad but true!   

I-69/75 has been the go to route for trucks trying to get to I-44 from DFW for decades. Its shorter than I-35 to OKC then I-44. Of course there are going to be alot of trucks on it. Why OK has not gone to the government and politic this route to be an interestate is beyond me.


Bunch of small towns on the route that don't want to be bypassed, and don't want to lose their revenue sources. Their reps have been in OKC for a long time, too.

that's just restating what we're saying
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: bugo on October 27, 2017, 05:10:34 AM
I'd venture a guess that now that I-49 is complete between I-44 and KC that a significant amount of truck traffic that would normally have been slogging through OKC on I-35 has shifted to US 69 as a mileage shortcut from DFW to KC (and vice-versa), mixing in with the traffic that traditionally used that route en route to St. Louis.  What was merely a pain in the ass (the smaller towns along the route + the Muskogee area) with the traffic levels I experienced the last time I was on the route around 2005 would be almost untenable with any substantial increase.  This is one of those regional corridors -- like US 287 between DFW and Amarillo in TX -- that would be under most circumstances a "lock" for Interstate upgrade consideration -- if it were anywhere but OK (how 287 has flown under TX radar is a mystery to me as well!)......or maybe VA!  There's even a piece of "add-on" ISTEA legislation floating around out there that actually authorizes an Interstate corridor on US 69 as far north as I-40; it's "grandfathered" in if OK ever wants to do something about it.  But I'll refrain from an assessment from the political side (as it would get flushed anyway!) and simply state that without a sea change in OKC no new Interstate projects, regardless of appropriateness, will likely happen within that state -- sad but true!   

US 71 was an expressway all the way from Kansas City to Joplin and beyond years ago. It was slowly upgraded a bit at a time. I remember around 1985 that it was complete as far south as Jasper and was completed to I-44 not too long afterwards. This shift in traffic patterns you mention happened decades ago. The I-49 designation did little other than eliminate a half dozen at grades on minor roads along the trek. The speed limit was already 70 and there were no traffic lights until you got north of I-435/Bannister Road (Route W).
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: sparker on October 27, 2017, 10:03:19 AM
I'd venture a guess that now that I-49 is complete between I-44 and KC that a significant amount of truck traffic that would normally have been slogging through OKC on I-35 has shifted to US 69 as a mileage shortcut from DFW to KC (and vice-versa), mixing in with the traffic that traditionally used that route en route to St. Louis.  What was merely a pain in the ass (the smaller towns along the route + the Muskogee area) with the traffic levels I experienced the last time I was on the route around 2005 would be almost untenable with any substantial increase.  This is one of those regional corridors -- like US 287 between DFW and Amarillo in TX -- that would be under most circumstances a "lock" for Interstate upgrade consideration -- if it were anywhere but OK (how 287 has flown under TX radar is a mystery to me as well!)......or maybe VA!  There's even a piece of "add-on" ISTEA legislation floating around out there that actually authorizes an Interstate corridor on US 69 as far north as I-40; it's "grandfathered" in if OK ever wants to do something about it.  But I'll refrain from an assessment from the political side (as it would get flushed anyway!) and simply state that without a sea change in OKC no new Interstate projects, regardless of appropriateness, will likely happen within that state -- sad but true!   

US 71 was an expressway all the way from Kansas City to Joplin and beyond years ago. It was slowly upgraded a bit at a time. I remember around 1985 that it was complete as far south as Jasper and was completed to I-44 not too long afterwards. This shift in traffic patterns you mention happened decades ago. The I-49 designation did little other than eliminate a half dozen at grades on minor roads along the trek. The speed limit was already 70 and there were no traffic lights until you got north of I-435/Bannister Road (Route W).

The first time I drove US 71 from KC down to I-44/Joplin was back in 1999; at that time, it seemed like the typical Midwest freeway/expressway corridor -- freeway, complete w/grade separations around sizeable towns and at major junctions, and expressway, with at-grade intersections (albeit mostly channelized) in between.  Not much in the way of private/driveway access; it did feature substantial frontage roads, even in the expressway sections.  So, yes, it was quite improved by then and arguably ready for conversion to a full limited-access facility -- but south of Harrisonville it was still technically a "mixed bag" at the time, with about equal expressway and freeway mileage. 
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 28, 2017, 04:09:36 AM
Anybody who thinks it is a good idea to remove I-345 is either huffing bug spray, is dumb as rocks or is a car-hater who wants to make everybody's lives miserable because they are smug assholes. I've driven through there many times and traffic is bad enough how it is. Last time I was down there I got stuck in a jam going from 75/345 south to 30 east at 7:30pm. If the freeway were to be removed traffic would have been backed up to Sherman.

Basically everyone who lives here in the city wants it gone, and everyone who lives far away or in the exurbs and comes through here periodically to get to Houston wants it to stay. I like freeways, just not this one.
Just because it impacts people who live around it doesn’t mean they should get they say in removing it. Sometimes things are there for a greater good. People need to look beyond themselves and understand that others have the right to live in the suburbs, living the lifestyle that they choose while having decent connections to downtown and across the city.

Suburbanites also need to recognize that they don't get to dictate the terms by which a city organizes itself. Cuts both ways.

I agree with you which is why things can be done like tunneling or building caps to improve connectivity where a traditionally built freeway would usually cut through. No reason to tear it down. A lot of people use this freeway. Probably more than the amount of people that live right along it.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: rte66man on November 05, 2017, 09:58:15 PM
Anybody who thinks it is a good idea to remove I-345 is either huffing bug spray, is dumb as rocks or is a car-hater who wants to make everybody's lives miserable because they are smug assholes. I've driven through there many times and traffic is bad enough how it is. Last time I was down there I got stuck in a jam going from 75/345 south to 30 east at 7:30pm. If the freeway were to be removed traffic would have been backed up to Sherman.

Bunch of small towns on the route that don't want to be bypassed, and don't want to lose their revenue sources. Their reps have been in OKC for a long time, too.

100% correct.  Back in the 90's, there was a serious effort to build a parallel turnpike from north of Durant to McAlester.  You would not believe how fast that got shot down.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: bugo on November 06, 2017, 07:34:47 PM
Those podunk shitholes along US 69 like Atoka, Stringtown and Kiowa can go fuck themselves. Why do they have enough power to stop a highway that is of national consequence? Every life that is lost is more blood upon the hands of the representatives of these towns. Every minute wasted, every bit of unnecessary pollution emitted, every bit of frustration is all their fault.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: NE2 on November 06, 2017, 11:54:19 PM
Every life lost or cut short by climate change is on your hands.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 07, 2017, 12:06:18 AM
Quote
Every life lost or cut short by climate change is on your hands.

Red Herring alert. So I guess we have to solve the very complicated (and politically polarized) issue of climate change before the state of Oklahoma puts any effort into addressing a screwed up, dangerous corridor totally overloaded with heavy truck traffic. How about all the extra damned truck exhaust getting belched into the air from semis having to crank through all those gears at every freaking traffic light along US-69 in Oklahoma? That's gotta be great for the greenhouse effect. Never mind the vehicles getting torpedoed and lives lost along the way.

The people in these towns trying to prevent a turnpike or Interstate from being built along the US-69 corridor must have rocks in their heads. Don't they realize the majority of long distance vehicle traffic prefers staying on Interstate corridors? There's loads of vehicles choosing the I-35/I-44 combo over stop light hell and speed trap hell along US-69. The idiots in those towns are leaving money on the table rather than saving any with their block headed actions.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: silverback1065 on November 07, 2017, 09:32:18 AM
Quote
Every life lost or cut short by climate change is on your hands.

Red Herring alert. So I guess we have to solve the very complicated (and politically polarized) issue of climate change before the state of Oklahoma puts any effort into addressing a screwed up, dangerous corridor totally overloaded with heavy truck traffic. How about all the extra damned truck exhaust getting belched into the air from semis having to crank through all those gears at every freaking traffic light along US-69 in Oklahoma? That's gotta be great for the greenhouse effect. Never mind the vehicles getting torpedoed and lives lost along the way.

The people in these towns trying to prevent a turnpike or Interstate from being built along the US-69 corridor must have rocks in their heads. Don't they realize the majority of long distance vehicle traffic prefers staying on Interstate corridors? There's loads of vehicles choosing the I-35/I-44 combo over stop light hell and speed trap hell along US-69. The idiots in those towns are leaving money on the table rather than saving any with their block headed actions.
he's trolling you  :-D
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: kphoger on November 07, 2017, 02:30:17 PM
Every life lost or cut short by climate change is on your hands.

Wouldn't eliminating stoplights slightly reduce pollution?
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: NE2 on November 07, 2017, 03:49:26 PM
Yep. Roundabouts are better.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: kphoger on November 07, 2017, 04:28:40 PM
trolling

Amen!
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: sparker on November 07, 2017, 04:30:39 PM
Yep. Roundabouts are better.

Uhh, yeah!?.....I'd be wary of installing roundabouts on US 69 in OK; it might take the truck traffic on that corridor a week or so before running right over the center island.  Probably not appropriate for any truck-heavy corridor unless the object is to drive such traffic elsewhere -- and that would certainly affect the revenue stream of Stringtown and other adherents of the speed-trap concept.  There's a reason (location + commercial traffic) why that corridor was grandfathered in back in '91 as a potential Interstate, regardless of the 26-year reticence of OK folks to follow through with that opportunity. 
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: kphoger on November 07, 2017, 04:38:35 PM
Yep. Roundabouts are better.

Uhh, yeah!?.....I'd be wary of installing roundabouts on US 69 in OK; it might take the truck traffic on that corridor a week or so before running right over the center island.  Probably not appropriate for any truck-heavy corridor unless the object is to drive such traffic elsewhere -- and that would certainly affect the revenue stream of Stringtown and other adherents of the speed-trap concept.  There's a reason (location + commercial traffic) why that corridor was grandfathered in back in '91 as a potential Interstate, regardless of the 26-year reticence of OK folks to follow through with that opportunity. 

First of all, have you not learned to spot a troll yet?   :pan:

Second of all, the roundabout at Fredonia, KS, works well on a corridor used heavily by trucks and RVs.  It's not as busy of a highway as US-75/69 in Oklahoma, however.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: sparker on November 07, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
Yep. Roundabouts are better.

Uhh, yeah!?.....I'd be wary of installing roundabouts on US 69 in OK; it might take the truck traffic on that corridor a week or so before running right over the center island.  Probably not appropriate for any truck-heavy corridor unless the object is to drive such traffic elsewhere -- and that would certainly affect the revenue stream of Stringtown and other adherents of the speed-trap concept.  There's a reason (location + commercial traffic) why that corridor was grandfathered in back in '91 as a potential Interstate, regardless of the 26-year reticence of OK folks to follow through with that opportunity. 

First of all, have you not learned to spot a troll yet?   :pan:

Second of all, the roundabout at Fredonia, KS, works well on a corridor used heavily by trucks and RVs.  It's not as busy of a highway as US-75/69 in Oklahoma, however.

I actually enjoy burying trolls in facts as opposed to counter-trolling; to me, it's much more fun and satisfying!  If they continue down a particular path, though.....snarkiness will ensue in short order!

Never been through Fredonia, however; I'm guessing the roundabout is part of US 400.  If that is ever reconstructed as a freeway, the roundabout could be integrated into the ramp system -- but I'll defer to the knowledge of more local posters as to the appropriateness of the roundabout for current traffic levels.   
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: TXtoNJ on November 08, 2017, 11:49:36 AM
Those podunk shitholes along US 69 like Atoka, Stringtown and Kiowa can go fuck themselves. Why do they have enough power to stop a highway that is of national consequence? Every life that is lost is more blood upon the hands of the representatives of these towns. Every minute wasted, every bit of unnecessary pollution emitted, every bit of frustration is all their fault.

If they know that's your attitude toward them, then why wouldn't they do everything they could to hold on to their one last little bit? And Oklahoma has a lot of sympathy for dying small towns, and a lot of animosity toward big-city planners who seem to be doing everything they can to kill those towns more quickly.

But as we've seen in this thread, suburbanites tend to think their convenience must be prioritized above all else.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 08, 2017, 12:09:20 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ
If they know that's your attitude toward them, then why wouldn't they do everything they could to hold on to their one last little bit?

More often than not it's citizens from those po-dunk towns that are getting splattered on US-69 in car/big rig collisions. Upgrading US-69 to an Interstate or Turnpike would do just as much to improve their safety as that of anyone else. Normally a super highway brings more commerce to towns like Atoka and Kiowa, especially if the highway is free access rather than a toll road. Currently a big amount of car traffic bypasses that corridor. Big rigs still take US-69 in droves because it is a short cut to Northeast destinations (as opposed to going up I-35 to OKC and then I-44 Northeast).
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: TXtoNJ on November 08, 2017, 12:21:52 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ
If they know that's your attitude toward them, then why wouldn't they do everything they could to hold on to their one last little bit?

More often than not it's citizens from those po-dunk towns that are getting splattered on US-69 in car/big rig collisions. Upgrading US-69 to an Interstate or Turnpike would do just as much to improve their safety as that of anyone else. Normally a super highway brings more commerce to towns like Atoka and Kiowa, especially if the highway is free access rather than a toll road. Currently a big amount of car traffic bypasses that corridor. Big rigs still take US-69 in droves because it is a short cut to Northeast destinations (as opposed to going up I-35 to OKC and then I-44 Northeast).

It's not about individual safety, in their minds - it's about preserving their town and how they live their lives. The past 70 years has been a relentless assault against that, and the expressways they thought would once save other small towns turned out to hasten their demises.

They're not going to just agree to roll over and die, to see their kids all move to Dallas/OKC/Tulsa even more quickly, because their town is one less inconvenience wiped off the maps of the economic planners. What are you willing to give them in return? Safety on the road won't be enough.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: sparker on November 08, 2017, 01:39:44 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ
If they know that's your attitude toward them, then why wouldn't they do everything they could to hold on to their one last little bit?

More often than not it's citizens from those po-dunk towns that are getting splattered on US-69 in car/big rig collisions. Upgrading US-69 to an Interstate or Turnpike would do just as much to improve their safety as that of anyone else. Normally a super highway brings more commerce to towns like Atoka and Kiowa, especially if the highway is free access rather than a toll road. Currently a big amount of car traffic bypasses that corridor. Big rigs still take US-69 in droves because it is a short cut to Northeast destinations (as opposed to going up I-35 to OKC and then I-44 Northeast).

It's not about individual safety, in their minds - it's about preserving their town and how they live their lives. The past 70 years has been a relentless assault against that, and the expressways they thought would once save other small towns turned out to hasten their demises.

They're not going to just agree to roll over and die, to see their kids all move to Dallas/OKC/Tulsa even more quickly, because their town is one less inconvenience wiped off the maps of the economic planners. What are you willing to give them in return? Safety on the road won't be enough.

If that is the case, then the issue is the perceived reality on the part of these small towns versus the actual reality of the situation as it sits on the ground.  If "how they live their lives" involves functioning as speed traps or, more accurately, speedbumps in the US 69 freight corridor (for that is precisely what the highway is at present), then a bigger picture needs to be addressed.  And part of that picture would be some level of compensation for losses incurred by installation of a freeway bypass -- likely in the form of set-asides at the interchanges for the businesses most dependent upon "pass-through" dollars to relocate in order to take advantage of the new configuration. 

These towns likely precede even an original 2-lane US 69 (or it might have been 73 in the very early days!); this corridor was "trailblazed" by the MKT railroad back in "Sooner" days; it's now a major UP interregional line connecting DFW with Kansas City.  But decades ago the railroads effectively ceased directly serving small towns such as the ones in question here; unit and container trains shoot through the centers of these towns regularly; the old "way freight" service that stopped to drop off and pick up cars from local businesses has been effectively ceded by the railroads to trucks -- but the smaller towns survived that turn of events and adapted.  If an Interstate-grade freeway corridor is deployed along US 69, the reality is that these towns will, in all likelihood, adapt to the new situation.  Romanticizing the existing situation as a form of "lifestyle" is pointless; future generations from these towns and this region will migrate as necessary to where the jobs are located -- an activity that has been going on regardless of whether a town has a bypass or not.  Towns generally exist because they are a central point for local activity; very few exist to be a virtual "bump in the road"; a through-traffic bypass won't change that situation; locals will still come into the town(s) to take care of their needs.  Truth is, Wal-Mart has screwed more businesses in the Midwest than freeway bypasses ever could -- but folks everywhere, particularly in rural areas, continue to patronize them for price and product selection. 

It sounds like the previous post is, in retrospect, a diatribe against the Interstate system in general and its aggregate effect on some small towns characterized by a highly bounded economic situation.  But viewing the towns cited here as having to resort to quixotic measures to survive paints them as unable to cope with the realities of modern life.  Personally, I'd give them more credit than that -- if the towns are to survive, their citizenry needs to be smart enough to figure out ways to adapt to the situation rather than merely complain about their circumstances; I'd guess that most of them will so adapt and thus persist.  And they'll probably, in time, attract residents from those towns that collectively choose stasis rather than necessary change. 

I doubt that there are planners within either the economic or transportation fields who are sitting in their offices going "bwa-ha-ha.....our plans are coming together......these podunks will soon be history!".  No virtual Blofelds out there; it's all part of an evolving continuum.     
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: TXtoNJ on November 08, 2017, 02:02:27 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ
If they know that's your attitude toward them, then why wouldn't they do everything they could to hold on to their one last little bit?

More often than not it's citizens from those po-dunk towns that are getting splattered on US-69 in car/big rig collisions. Upgrading US-69 to an Interstate or Turnpike would do just as much to improve their safety as that of anyone else. Normally a super highway brings more commerce to towns like Atoka and Kiowa, especially if the highway is free access rather than a toll road. Currently a big amount of car traffic bypasses that corridor. Big rigs still take US-69 in droves because it is a short cut to Northeast destinations (as opposed to going up I-35 to OKC and then I-44 Northeast).

It's not about individual safety, in their minds - it's about preserving their town and how they live their lives. The past 70 years has been a relentless assault against that, and the expressways they thought would once save other small towns turned out to hasten their demises.

They're not going to just agree to roll over and die, to see their kids all move to Dallas/OKC/Tulsa even more quickly, because their town is one less inconvenience wiped off the maps of the economic planners. What are you willing to give them in return? Safety on the road won't be enough.

If that is the case, then the issue is the perceived reality on the part of these small towns versus the actual reality of the situation as it sits on the ground.  If "how they live their lives" involves functioning as speed traps or, more accurately, speedbumps in the US 69 freight corridor (for that is precisely what the highway is at present), then a bigger picture needs to be addressed.  And part of that picture would be some level of compensation for losses incurred by installation of a freeway bypass -- likely in the form of set-asides at the interchanges for the businesses most dependent upon "pass-through" dollars to relocate in order to take advantage of the new configuration. 

These towns likely precede even an original 2-lane US 69 (or it might have been 73 in the very early days!); this corridor was "trailblazed" by the MKT railroad back in "Sooner" days; it's now a major UP interregional line connecting DFW with Kansas City.  But decades ago the railroads effectively ceased directly serving small towns such as the ones in question here; unit and container trains shoot through the centers of these towns regularly; the old "way freight" service that stopped to drop off and pick up cars from local businesses has been effectively ceded by the railroads to trucks -- but the smaller towns survived that turn of events and adapted.  If an Interstate-grade freeway corridor is deployed along US 69, the reality is that these towns will, in all likelihood, adapt to the new situation.  Romanticizing the existing situation as a form of "lifestyle" is pointless; future generations from these towns and this region will migrate as necessary to where the jobs are located -- an activity that has been going on regardless of whether a town has a bypass or not.  Towns generally exist because they are a central point for local activity; very few exist to be a virtual "bump in the road"; a through-traffic bypass won't change that situation; locals will still come into the town(s) to take care of their needs.  Truth is, Wal-Mart has screwed more businesses in the Midwest than freeway bypasses ever could -- but folks everywhere, particularly in rural areas, continue to patronize them for price and product selection. 

It sounds like the previous post is, in retrospect, a diatribe against the Interstate system in general and its aggregate effect on some small towns characterized by a highly bounded economic situation.  But viewing the towns cited here as having to resort to quixotic measures to survive paints them as unable to cope with the realities of modern life.  Personally, I'd give them more credit than that -- if the towns are to survive, their citizenry needs to be smart enough to figure out ways to adapt to the situation rather than merely complain about their circumstances; I'd guess that most of them will so adapt and thus persist.  And they'll probably, in time, attract residents from those towns that collectively choose stasis rather than necessary change. 

I doubt that there are planners within either the economic or transportation fields who are sitting in their offices going "bwa-ha-ha.....our plans are coming together......these podunks will soon be history!".  No virtual Blofelds out there; it's all part of an evolving continuum.     

Walmart couldn't exist without the Interstates, and shopping there is a matter of saving the few cents you have over long-term benefit. It's a scarcity vs. abundance mentality.

I'm not saying that's my opinion - but that is the perspective they're coming from. There isn't a shadowy conspiracy, but there are people with plans (for whatever bit of business they're involved in), and these small towns have become more-or-less frictional to them. The people in these towns understand that, and as a result, ramp up the friction as much as they can, because that's the only way they're going to bring in what they need to keep going.

You and I may type this from a city or a suburb, talking about how the "circumstances on the ground" have changed, but that requires a tacit acceptance of the status quo as being benign or desirable. The people in these small towns simply don't see it that way - they see it as a bad political decision that has been forced upon them. Pretending that it's not will not resolve the situation without having to exert state force, which they'll do everything in their power to combat. Which brings us to the current situation.

Meanwhile, it's exactly the same thing for people who want 345 to be buried or torn down. They simply don't think configuring their city to cater to suburbanites is the best use of public policy, and no one in the suburbs is offering much in counterargument beyond "but we deserve it!" and "you're being selfish by not giving me exactly what I want, when I want it!"
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 08, 2017, 02:07:12 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ
It's not about individual safety, in their minds - it's about preserving their town and how they live their lives. The past 70 years has been a relentless assault against that, and the expressways they thought would once save other small towns turned out to hasten their demises.

Blocking a highway improvement will do nothing to prevent a small town's young people from leaving. If the town sucks for its young people it sucks regardless if an Interstate highway is present or not. The claim that a freeway would speed a town's demise is pretty questionable. In Oklahoma's case small towns all over the state are shrinking and dying out regardless of being on or off a major highway corridor.

These small towns are shrinking and dying off because they lack good quality jobs needed by young people reaching adulthood. Career opportunity is limited. The first thing kids do when they graduate from high school and/or college is try their best to get out of town. Social opportunities and the dating pool is severely limited in small towns. Single women leave small towns in droves for numerous socio-economic reasons. Most of the jobs in/near small towns are mainly for men, that especially goes for the agricultural and oilfield jobs in Oklahoma.

Women make up the majority of the retail and restaurant service industry work force (cashiers, waiters, sales clerks, etc.). There's far more of those types of jobs in large towns and cities than in small towns. There's more upwardly mobile men in the cities. Not many American women these days want to leave high school just to be a stay at home mom. The outrageously high price of health care and other parental costs are forcing many American women to delay having children or just not have children at all. So even if some women do stay behind in these small towns they're not popping out children at anywhere near the rate they did back in the Good 'ole Days. The United States now has a "baby bust" that is starting to unfold; the birth rate for American born women is now 1.8 and dropping. The rate has hovered near a "replacement level" of 2.0 for the past 40 years, which means all of the net population growth in the United States since the 1970's has come from immigration. This baby bust is going to hit all parts of the nation and may get especially bad in high cost cities like New York and San Francisco where working class lower to middle income people are literally being pushed out due to extreme housing costs. Even when residents of these giant cities migrate elsewhere they almost always settle in some other medium to large size city. They don't move to little towns with few jobs, few services and nothing to do.

It would be interesting to know the median age of the people blocking efforts to improve US-69. If I had to guess I would say they're mostly people who are elderly or at least nearing retirement age.

If a struggling small town is along a major highway corridor there is at least some chance the town can attract employers that utilize the highways, like regional shopping centers or distribution centers.

Quote from: TXtoNJ
Walmart couldn't exist without the Interstates, and shopping there is a matter of saving the few cents you have over long-term benefit. It's a scarcity vs. abundance mentality.

The same mentality has driven millions to online retailers to buy products discounted even further and even free of any sales tax. As a result we have a worsening brick and mortar retail apocalypse in progress. It's going to make that "baby bust" I mentioned even worse, as well as speed up the demise of small towns. There are many times more jobs in physical retail than there is in manufacturing.

Quote from: TXtoNJ
You and I may type this from a city or a suburb, talking about how the "circumstances on the ground" have changed, but that requires a tacit acceptance of the status quo as being benign or desirable. The people in these small towns simply don't see it that way - they see it as a bad political decision that has been forced upon them. Pretending that it's not will not resolve the situation without having to exert state force, which they'll do everything in their power to combat. Which brings us to the current situation.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm basing some of my comments from what I've been observing in towns in Southwest Oklahoma. I have family in Temple and it's clear that town's best days are well in the past. Many of these towns struggle to keep their public schools afloat. Once the schools go bust the whole freaking town gets put on a fast track to becoming a ghost town.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: kphoger on November 08, 2017, 02:25:23 PM
Blocking a highway improvement will do nothing to prevent a small town's young people from leaving. If the town sucks for its young people it sucks regardless if an Interstate highway is present or not.

If people are less likely to stop and get gas, eat lunch, hunt for antiques, stay the night, etc—because the highway no longer goes through town—then that means there is less commerce happening in the town.  If there's less commerce, then there are fewer jobs.  If there are few jobs, then people leave who might otherwise not have left.  Trust me, I grew up in a small and dying town.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: silverback1065 on November 08, 2017, 03:11:12 PM
Every life lost or cut short by climate change is on your hands.

Wouldn't eliminating stoplights slightly reduce pollution?

yes
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: kphoger on November 08, 2017, 03:36:39 PM
Every life lost or cut short by climate change is on your hands.

Wouldn't eliminating stoplights slightly reduce pollution?

yes

It might actually be a debatable topic.  Assuming the main highway would otherwise have a longer green cycle, it might be advantageous w/t/r emissions over a roundabout, where 100% vehicles must (but are not forced to (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15546.msg2223362#msg2223362)) slow down to under 25 mph and then accelerate again.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: sparker on November 08, 2017, 10:23:24 PM
You and I may type this from a city or a suburb, talking about how the "circumstances on the ground" have changed, but that requires a tacit acceptance of the status quo as being benign or desirable. The people in these small towns simply don't see it that way - they see it as a bad political decision that has been forced upon them. Pretending that it's not will not resolve the situation without having to exert state force, which they'll do everything in their power to combat. Which brings us to the current situation.
Blocking a highway improvement will do nothing to prevent a small town's young people from leaving. If the town sucks for its young people it sucks regardless if an Interstate highway is present or not.

If people are less likely to stop and get gas, eat lunch, hunt for antiques, stay the night, etc—. because the highway no longer goes through town —then that means there is less commerce happening in the town.  If there's less commerce, then there are fewer jobs.  If there are few jobs, then people leave who might otherwise not have left.  Trust me, I grew up in a small and dying town.

I apologize in advance for seeming to make light of a serious subject, but those citizens of any of these towns most vocal about opposing any freeway bypasses strike me as similar to the "Black Knight" in Monty Python and the Holy Grail......."none shall pass!" (and the outcome of that stance is well-known!).   Time, the vagaries of Western Civ, and the detritus of progress (for better or worse) has, I'll readily concede, exacerbated the problems of these as well as other small towns in this country.  But what I've been trying to get at is that these problems are existing with the corridor "as is"; they are endemic to rural and semi-rural America in general; attempting to forestall these issues by targeting pass-through traffic seems to be a last-ditch and ultimately non-productive venture.  When it comes to speed traps, I have little or no sympathy for that tactic (if a town has to resort to such, it might not be a worthy candidate for survival).  Supplying roadside services (food, fuel, lodging) is another matter; if those things contribute a substantial portion of a town's fiscal stability, then of course that has to be taken into consideration when a change of roadway alignment is considered.  But there's a big difference in demonstrating respect for the citizenry and deference to their position that the present situation needs to remain static.  Adult relationships are based on respect; the adult-child versions add deference to that; in this instance, those who would wish to deploy a freeway through or around these various communities are not automatically relegated to a "child" position of deference to the status-quo preference of some community members; the discussion has to be bilateral, with give & take on both sides.  The opposition to freeway deployment has, so far, been abetted by OK's reticence or inability to finance facilities of this kind; but that may not always be the case -- in which instance negotiations would ensue.  Right now the "townies" are safe, simply because there are no immediate plans to change that status quo (the McAlester improvements notwithstanding).  But the chances are, especially if the corridor hosts increasing more commercial traffic, that somewhere down the line freeway conversion will be on the table; if these towns have any common sense, they should prepare for that with plans other than opposition based on ideology or nostalgia.

Also -- looking at the corridor (I haven't been on it personally for nearly 15 years) on GE (average view mid-2015) from Durant to McAlester, it would appear that most of the towns along the route have a multitude of other sources of income independent of the US 69 traffic flow.  The town center of Caney is well away from the roadway; there doesn't seem to be much in the way of facilities along the road itself.  Tushka seems to have a plethora of agricultural activity (grain yards, warehouses) supporting itself; again, not too many road-related facilities to speak of.  Atoka is the county seat and a large self-supporting town; it's hard to see how a bypass would more than marginally affect the town's financial picture.  Stringtown, the notorious speed trap, is also well away from the highway; there's a mining operation directly north of town along the rail line, which likely serves as the raison d'etre of that town (and you already know my opinion of the speed trap situation!); again little or no road-related commercial activity.  Kiowa is the only town that appears to have extensive facilities along the roadway that likely cater to the traveler -- and also seemingly lacking other activities save the Army ammunition dump a couple of miles to the northwest (which is primarily accessed from Savanna -- which appears to be the town most directly related to the Army facility).  Except for Kiowa, there doesn't seem to be any town that would be more than marginally dependent upon a steady stream of traffic through its midst.  If a freeway bypass were to be planned around that town, it would be appropriate to direct resources toward that town in order to expedite any relocations necessary for those businesses now dependent on through traffic to position themselves -- via both location and publicity -- to continue to serve the traffic flow at whatever interchanges are planned in and around the town itself. 

There is no viable solution to long-term corridor needs that doesn't involve disrupting what TXtoNJ characterizes as attitudes stemming from decisions made elsewhere.  The problem is that the situation is one best described as reaction rather than response.  OK's reluctance to recognize that the future of the US 69 corridor is going to require more than simply ignoring the problem -- and letting any resentment on the part of the local citizenry fester without even exploring viable alternatives -- is not a situation that will just resolve itself by continued inaction.  Kiowa and the other towns need not be OK's version of Breezewood -- but a dialogue needs to be established as soon as feasible regarding what's going to happen somewhere "down the road", so to speak.       
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: kphoger on November 09, 2017, 01:14:15 PM
I apologize in advance for seeming to make light of a serious subject, but those citizens of any of these towns most vocal about opposing any freeway bypasses strike me as similar to the "Black Knight" in Monty Python and the Holy Grail......."none shall pass!" (and the outcome of that stance is well-known!).   Time, the vagaries of Western Civ, and the detritus of progress (for better or worse) has, I'll readily concede, exacerbated the problems of these as well as other small towns in this country.  But what I've been trying to get at is that these problems are existing with the corridor "as is"; they are endemic to rural and semi-rural America in general; attempting to forestall these issues by targeting pass-through traffic seems to be a last-ditch and ultimately non-productive venture. 

So are you suggesting that citizens of small, endangered towns should just give up and speed their town's demise by supporting bypasses?  Or are you suggesting that state legislatures should ignore the plight of its rural communities?  Neither one of those sounds like a good idea to me.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: sparker on November 09, 2017, 06:11:02 PM
I apologize in advance for seeming to make light of a serious subject, but those citizens of any of these towns most vocal about opposing any freeway bypasses strike me as similar to the "Black Knight" in Monty Python and the Holy Grail......."none shall pass!" (and the outcome of that stance is well-known!).   Time, the vagaries of Western Civ, and the detritus of progress (for better or worse) has, I'll readily concede, exacerbated the problems of these as well as other small towns in this country.  But what I've been trying to get at is that these problems are existing with the corridor "as is"; they are endemic to rural and semi-rural America in general; attempting to forestall these issues by targeting pass-through traffic seems to be a last-ditch and ultimately non-productive venture. 

So are you suggesting that citizens of small, endangered towns should just give up and speed their town's demise by supporting bypasses?  Or are you suggesting that state legislatures should ignore the plight of its rural communities?  Neither one of those sounds like a good idea to me.

I'm going to lob this back into your court:  Are you suggesting that any corridor planning -- including this particular one -- cease at the possibility that a town along the way might in some way see a decline in business from travelers?  Have we gotten to the point where any objection to a project represents an absolute veto over that project?  If so -- and implemented -- that would effectively curtail roadway upgrades in much, if not most, of the nation -- or result in a never-ending string of functional "Breezewoods".   I for one don't see the larger-picture benefit to that situation. 

I'm not suggesting that these towns "roll over" when it comes to projects affecting them, nor do I suggest that their state representatives do so as well.  But I'd like to see a compromise-ready common-sense approach to the issue, rather than the "black and white" scenario you depict.  First of all, these towns need to accept the fact that they're located on a freight-heavy corridor -- which will in all likelihood see increasing commercial traffic as truckers elect to bypass OKC congestion; the completion of I-49 north of I-44 in MO makes US 69 part of a "straight shot" from DFW to KC -- both freight hubs -- I think most of the posters here acknowledge that situation.  It's been both a boon and a burden to the communities scattered along the route; some, like McAlester, have welcomed the idea of taking that through traffic off the previous surface route (one of those former bypasses later inundated by local development) and converting it to a full freeway.  In all likelihood they, like most of the towns along the route, are not largely dependent upon income derived from pass-through traffic (as I mentioned in the part of my post that followed the statement copied above).  With the smaller of those, all that is substituted is interchanges for at-grade intersections; as the business districts (such as they are) for these towns are more often than not well away from US 69 (and often across the parallel UPRR tracks, like Stringtown), there exists, even with the present configuration, little incentive for travelers to seek out services there.  Atoka and McAlester are large and variegated enough to have long outgrown any dependency upon roadside amenities for income; so essentially, as I asserted earlier, that leaves Kiowa as the sole town likely to be significantly affected by a future bypass  (if one considers speed traps a deplorable concept that deserve condemnation). 

The question then arises -- if at some point the US 69 corridor as a whole is considered for a full upgrade to Interstate standards -- how to address this issue in such a way as to provide enough benefits to offset as much as possible the losses incurred by corridor avoidance of the CBD's of these towns.  Obviously that doesn't deal with any emotional detritus on the part of town residents who have in & of themselves framed the issue as an existential -- and binary -- dilemma (and the politicians who, frankly, get re-elected by exploiting those sentiments) where the "big picture" gets lost in the shuffle.  But by adopting an "us against the world/all or nothing" stance, towns such as these cast themselves in the role of "outlier" -- particularly if other communities along the corridor have, even with some reluctance, embraced the upgrade concept. 

The one thing that is missing in the arguments presented here is context.  We're not talking about rural towns in general, which exhibit their own issues related to general civilization , economics, and "progress" -- but specific ones located along a massively-traveled interregional corridor.  And this is a corridor that has seen periodic upgrades from time to time -- from a 2-lane highway paralleling a major RR line to an expressway/arterial mix, part of which has already seen full-freeway conversion, with more actually planned as such (e.g. the recently-announced Muskogee US 69 relocation effort).  Unless folks living along the corridor have been wearing blinders for the last few decades, it's pretty obvious that the status quo for any part of the corridor could never be considered permanent by any standards; the bypass development in Durant to the south and McAlester at the south end of the long US 69 freeway stretch to the north should serve as the proverbial "writing on the wall" regarding the status of the corridor's remainder -- and that no amount of preservationist lore, nostalgia for a more bucolic time, or dirges about the demise of rural America will keep the wolf from the door forever. 

I'm not completely oblivious or unsympathetic to the plight of these and other rural towns; I've got literally dozens of relatives in this general area of Oklahoma, but none in towns over 30K population -- they are either in small towns or "out in the country".  But while they do grouse about such things, virtually all recognize the fact that "life is change" (and they're generally a hell of lot more conservative than me!).  One such relative is an EMT supervisor for the SE Oklahoma emergency-response district that covers essentially everything south of the Canadian River and east of OK 48; he's based in Durant.  He's been in the agency for about 35 years now in one capacity or another -- starting out as a paramedic.  He was talking about the safety issues on the US 69 corridor years before I ever drove it -- and this was well after the facility was brought out to a minimum of 4 lanes by the early '80's.  The teams responding to calls on that highway had to be exceptionally wary of local traffic darting out onto the road, trucks suddenly braking in front of them when approaching towns (where the speed limit would drop from 55 or 65 to 25 or 30); the EMT's were quite elated when the US 69/75 freeway was completed in Bryan County.  My cousin has certainly done his share of complaining at both the county and state levels regarding why US 69 is still in its current state -- and the answer has inevitably been funding; with the occasional aside to the gist of "well, some people just don't want to see anything changed".  He opined that those folks are the ones writing checks to their legislators to ensure that the status quo remains just that.  Since his teams go far afield, he naturally is concerned about the roads they are obligated to utilize -- and he has expressed dismay at how a corridor with the level of traffic that US 69 displays isn't yet fully access-controlled; he has said that his ambulances can do 85 mph easily on the freeway segments, but they have to drop back by 30 mph or so in the town areas just to avoid potential incidents (primarily T-bones, which have occurred).  Between dodging in and out of the truck traffic and looking out for side-traffic the travel time from an incident in the Kiowa area down to Durant (which has a trauma center at the county hospital), about 60 miles, is just about an hour; he estimates that if a freeway were in place, including a bypass of Atoka, they could cut the time down to 40-42 minutes -- a time difference often critical in medical emergencies.

Despite all this, it's likely that all this discourse is simply a discussion of differing priorities.  Without available funding, the status quo of all the little towns arrayed along US 69 will remain unchanged; Kiowa folks will still get what pass-through business there is unabated, and unless someone with clout calls them on their shit, Stringtown will continue to write gobs of speeding tickets.  But, still, there are plenty of small rural towns not straddling major interregional corridors to serve as "poster children"  for the socioeconomic differentials that have left them behind; the folks along US 69, in all likelihood, know that change is coming -- but so far have been fortunate in one of the most ironic senses ever:  the economic problems of rural America have resulted in less available funding for projects such as any US 69 upgrade -- a situation that is currently ensuring the continuation of the status quo.         

 
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: kphoger on November 10, 2017, 01:16:14 PM
Are you suggesting that any corridor planning -- including this particular one -- cease at the possibility that a town along the way might in some way see a decline in business from travelers?  Have we gotten to the point where any objection to a project represents an absolute veto over that project?  If so -- and implemented -- that would effectively curtail roadway upgrades in much, if not most, of the nation -- or result in a never-ending string of functional "Breezewoods".   I for one don't see the larger-picture benefit to that situation. 

Certainly not.  I was just starting to get the impression you thought small-town citizens should just accept the fact that their way of life is doomed and should raise the white flag.  Part of that was a sour taste left in my mouth from bugo's and Bobby5280's earlier comments, and I apologize for attributing those sentiments to you.  But I wasn't sure what you thought the solution should be.  If towns along the corridor are already dwindling, then I couldn't foresee their citizens doing anything less than everything they could to stay afloat.  And I couldn't foresee legislators favoring the interests of Dallas and Kansas City over those of the communities who actually elected them to office.

One path to survival, IMHO (assuming the main drag through town can't simply be grade-separated), is for a bypass to be constructed close enough to the town proper that people can see the town and not feel like it's an inconvenience to stop there.  Failing that, a town needs to understand and zone for the replacement of mom-and-pop diners with a truck stop and a Wendy's out by the bypass; it's not as romantic as Main Street, but it might actually be better in the end.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 10, 2017, 02:51:36 PM
Quote from: kphoger
I was just starting to get the impression you thought small-town citizens should just accept the fact that their way of life is doomed and should raise the white flag.  Part of that was a sour taste left in my mouth from bugo's and Bobby5280's earlier comments, and I apologize for attributing those sentiments to you.

That sour taste comes from the bitter truth.

I have a sentimental attachment to some small towns, like Temple here in Oklahoma. I don't want them to dry up and die. However, there is very little I or anyone else can do to prevent it.

I used to have a lot of family in Temple. But then my dad's parents and everyone else from that generation passed away and others moved out of town. Out of family members in my father's generation, I'm down to one Aunt left living in Temple. Out of my generation I have a cousin living there part time, but traveling much of the time due to his job with Halliburton. Not nearly enough younger people are choosing to stay in Temple to replace all the others who've been growing old and dying.

Small towns like this are struggling to function. Temple no longer has its own police department; it now relies on the Cotton Country Sheriff's Dept. Residents have to drive to Lawton, Duncan or Wichita Falls for any real health care services. The property tax base is shrinking. That forces the local schools and others providing basic services like water/sewage treatment and garbage removal to get by with less and less. Most of the people there have modest incomes and can't withstand a big tax hike on income or property.

Jobs good enough to attract young workers and keep them there long enough to build families are the only thing that can save small towns. Towns that are off the beaten path, like Temple, are doomed in the long run.

Towns along US-69 like Atoka or Kiowa would at least have some outside chance of attracting new business and industry with US-69 converted into a full blown Interstate. Towns near the I-35 corridor, such as Davis, Paul's Valley and Purcell didn't die off from getting bypassed by I-35. If those towns along US-69 want people to stop and spend some of their money in those towns they have to give travelers a reason to stop. Otherwise they're just going to keep driving even if they're held up a bit by stop signs, traffic lights and speed traps. And that last one will encourage casual motorists with money to spend to avoid that corridor completely. So, screw Stringtown and its speed traps.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: sparker on November 10, 2017, 05:20:08 PM
Are you suggesting that any corridor planning -- including this particular one -- cease at the possibility that a town along the way might in some way see a decline in business from travelers?  Have we gotten to the point where any objection to a project represents an absolute veto over that project?  If so -- and implemented -- that would effectively curtail roadway upgrades in much, if not most, of the nation -- or result in a never-ending string of functional "Breezewoods".   I for one don't see the larger-picture benefit to that situation. 

Certainly not.  I was just starting to get the impression you thought small-town citizens should just accept the fact that their way of life is doomed and should raise the white flag.  Part of that was a sour taste left in my mouth from bugo's and Bobby5280's earlier comments, and I apologize for attributing those sentiments to you.  But I wasn't sure what you thought the solution should be.  If towns along the corridor are already dwindling, then I couldn't foresee their citizens doing anything less than everything they could to stay afloat.  And I couldn't foresee legislators favoring the interests of Dallas and Kansas City over those of the communities who actually elected them to office.

One path to survival, IMHO (assuming the main drag through town can't simply be grade-separated), is for a bypass to be constructed close enough to the town proper that people can see the town and not feel like it's an inconvenience to stop there.  Failing that, a town needs to understand and zone for the replacement of mom-and-pop diners with a truck stop and a Wendy's out by the bypass; it's not as romantic as Main Street, but it might actually be better in the end.

Actually, your suggestion about locating any bypass as close to the original alignment as feasible (generally dictated by how much of the town would need to be razed to accomplish this) seems to be the best compromise available.  Part of any project of this type should include a pool of funds for relocating those businesses most susceptible to failure absent pass-through traffic (restaurants, gas stations, even overnight accommodations).  I've found that, in general, specialty shops such as antique stores can also relocate next to interchanges (with appropriate roadside advertising -- or, these days, a decent web presence) if the town is willing to zone for small commercial zones or malls.  Out here in CA we have what would nominally be a forlorn stretch of I-5 in the northern Sacramento Valley (between Sacramento and Redding) historically without much to offer the traveler except a generally safe flatland freeway (except when tule fog hits!).  It also traverses one of the major dairy and specialty-crop areas of the state (Glenn and Tehama counties).  It took a while (the freeway fully opened about 1973) for the proverbial "light bulb" to come on, but about 20-25 years ago some of the local agricultural interests started placing specialty stores at many of the interchanges between Willows and Red Bluff selling dozens of olive, nut, and fruit varieties (with coffee shops attached); overall, these have thrived -- and even become day-trip destinations from Sacramento and the Bay Area.  And even the local dairy industry, nominally centered in Willows, has caught on -- they were always OEM producers of specialty cheese, ice cream, gelato, and other products for supermarkets or distributors; now a couple of the producers (Graziers and Sierra Nevada dairies) have set up roadside facilities similar to the olive/nut shops -- and have made that nominally "pass-through" territory effectively the specialty-cheese center of California!  Now I'm not suggesting that such could be readily duplicated on US 69 in Oklahoma (which is still functionally more of a commercial corridor than a major interurban connector), but the business model for this sort of operation is out there; if an I-45 extension -- or anything else -- is ever superimposed on that corridor, then not all needs to be lost regarding localized road-related commercial activity.  Any planning efforts need to take all aspects of how the towns relate to the road corridor into account; in the case of I-5 in the Willows area, the freeway was located only a few blocks to the west of the old US 99W alignment following the railroad tracks; so when the localized marketing impetus occurred, it had a place to go with minimal expense and disruption (as most of the actual dairy operations were adjacent to the RR tracks). 

Ironically -- old 99W is one of the few extant CA I-5 business loops that has retained most of its signage as well as BGS trailblazers on I-5 itself.  I don't know what constitutes standard OK practice regarding business loops, but if new-alignment bypasses are eventually constructed, a well-signed loop (even detouring US 69 itself over the original route if the bypass is part of a new Interstate) might in some way keep some of the in-town businesses "on the margin" from outright failure.  If I have time in the next few days I might do a GSV "sweep" of the corridor to see how business loops in the towns currently bypassed by freeways/expressways (Durant, McAlester, Checotah) are handled by ODOT.   If anyone in the area wants to chime in about this, I'm all eyes!
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: rte66man on November 11, 2017, 09:38:55 AM
Also -- looking at the corridor (I haven't been on it personally for nearly 15 years) on GE (average view mid-2015) from Durant to McAlester, it would appear that most of the towns along the route have a multitude of other sources of income independent of the US 69 traffic flow.  Atoka is the county seat and a large self-supporting town; it's hard to see how a bypass would more than marginally affect the town's financial picture. 

Atoka is the only town between Durant and McAlester with major E-W roads (OK3 and OK7) crossing US69 as well as US75 coming in from the north.  That plus being the county seat (as you mentioned) means it will survive regardless of the presence of a bypass.

Quote
Stringtown, the notorious speed trap, is also well away from the highway; there's a mining operation directly north of town along the rail line, which likely serves as the raison d'etre of that town (and you already know my opinion of the speed trap situation!)

The prison is by far the largest employer in the town.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: bugo on November 11, 2017, 11:36:25 AM
Every life lost or cut short by climate change is on your hands.

Vehicles stuck in traffic or at red lights emit more of the bad stuff than vehicles cruising at highway speeds nonstop.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: bugo on November 11, 2017, 11:39:11 AM
Those podunk shitholes along US 69 like Atoka, Stringtown and Kiowa can go fuck themselves. Why do they have enough power to stop a highway that is of national consequence? Every life that is lost is more blood upon the hands of the representatives of these towns. Every minute wasted, every bit of unnecessary pollution emitted, every bit of frustration is all their fault.

If they know that's your attitude toward them, then why wouldn't they do everything they could to hold on to their one last little bit? And Oklahoma has a lot of sympathy for dying small towns, and a lot of animosity toward big-city planners who seem to be doing everything they can to kill those towns more quickly.

But as we've seen in this thread, suburbanites tend to think their convenience must be prioritized above all else.

They don't care what I think about them. Like too many, all they care about is money.

FWIW, I live in an urban area.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: bugo on November 11, 2017, 11:44:32 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ
If they know that's your attitude toward them, then why wouldn't they do everything they could to hold on to their one last little bit?

More often than not it's citizens from those po-dunk towns that are getting splattered on US-69 in car/big rig collisions. Upgrading US-69 to an Interstate or Turnpike would do just as much to improve their safety as that of anyone else. Normally a super highway brings more commerce to towns like Atoka and Kiowa, especially if the highway is free access rather than a toll road. Currently a big amount of car traffic bypasses that corridor. Big rigs still take US-69 in droves because it is a short cut to Northeast destinations (as opposed to going up I-35 to OKC and then I-44 Northeast).

It's not about individual safety, in their minds - it's about preserving their town and how they live their lives. The past 70 years has been a relentless assault against that, and the expressways they thought would once save other small towns turned out to hasten their demises.

They're not going to just agree to roll over and die, to see their kids all move to Dallas/OKC/Tulsa even more quickly, because their town is one less inconvenience wiped off the maps of the economic planners. What are you willing to give them in return? Safety on the road won't be enough.

But their kids are moving to the cities in record numbers. There are numerous reasons small towns die (and you are vastly overstating the death of small towns) but these towns refuse to point the finger at themselves and do constructive things to slow down their demise.

I grew up in a small town that has not yet been bypassed. Guess what? It's dying. It's already dead. You can't blame a bypass on it. I blame the shortsighted and stubborn city "leaders" who would rather lost money than let an Arby's or a Long John Silver's open. I'm shocked that they finally got a Walgreens, even though the only reason they got one is because Walgreens bought a smaller chain that had a location there.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: bugo on November 11, 2017, 11:49:44 AM
Walmart couldn't exist without the Interstates, and shopping there is a matter of saving the few cents you have over long-term benefit. It's a scarcity vs. abundance mentality.

Most early Walmarts weren't built along interstates. In fact a lot of them were built along towns that didn't even have interstates and still don't have interstates.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: bugo on November 11, 2017, 11:59:37 AM
Meanwhile, it's exactly the same thing for people who want 345 to be buried or torn down. They simply don't think configuring their city to cater to suburbanites is the best use of public policy, and no one in the suburbs is offering much in counterargument beyond "but we deserve it!" and "you're being selfish by not giving me exactly what I want, when I want it!"

On the flipside, the urbanites are being selfish by wanting to tear down the highways. "How dare you drive through MY part of town!" There is racism involved as well.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: bugo on November 11, 2017, 12:26:06 PM
I vote with my wallet when I drive to Dallas by not spending money in any of these shit towns. I get gas in Tulsa or Dallas, and if I need to stop for other reasons I'll stop at an exit on a freeway section (or the concessions on the Indian Nation Turnpike) and not in Podunkia.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: bugo on November 11, 2017, 12:50:15 PM
Part of that was a sour taste left in my mouth from bugo's and Bobby5280's earlier comments

I have a sour taste in my mouth from almost getting killed several times on that deathtrap of a road. The risk of being pulled over and becoming a victim of police brutality is another hazard of this road. When I have time, I just go through OKC. It's slower but much more relaxing.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: silverback1065 on November 13, 2017, 07:27:48 AM
look at the stats, people are continuing to move to cities, it shows no sign of stopping.  rural life will continue to decline. 
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: sparker on November 13, 2017, 02:28:22 PM
look at the stats, people are continuing to move to cities, it shows no sign of stopping.  rural life will continue to decline. 

And by and large they're taking their existing attitudes with them when they do.  However, very few end up in city centers; recent arrivals from smaller areas tend to cluster in suburbs or even exurbs -- principally because they move for economic reasons rather than a social "sea change".  The more diffused suburban experience is often markedly more reminiscent of their previous situation -- something they can "slide into" with relative ease.  It's simply a matter of self-selection.  Those who prefer city life and its accoutrements are the ones who occupy the condos and/or high-rises in densely packed city cores; again, they self-select into that environment.  Their attitudes tend to gel when in proximity to others of like minds -- including a sense of self-satisfaction with their living choices.  They can't imagine giving up the proximate availability of the conveniences they value; the thought of going elsewhere on a regular or continuing basis just doesn't fit into their particular bounded rationality.  Seeing a freeway in their area, particularly one that eventually heads out to the 'burbs, may strike them as a poor use of available city space -- space that could be utilized to fortify their raison d'etre with housing for more like-minded folks or more of their favored amenities.  Eventually a collective form of that sentiment is politicized (and tribalized) into such things as the freeway tear-down movement seen with I-345 in Dallas, I-81 in Syracuse, and elsewhere, abetted by the urbanist viewpoint (largely affiliated with urban-planning departments at major universities -- their graduates tend to populate if not dominate city planning agencies).  Laying claim to the "high ground" with localized support, these movements tend to affix themselves as the center of attention within a specific situation.  Previous "tear-downs" are cited as successful examples; of course, none of these to date involved severing a major artery (all were spurs or underutilized connectors).  Unfortunately, the discussion has been itself tribalized; the "good/sustainable" urban environment vs. the "misbegotten/wasteful" suburban idiom.  Sides dig in and formulate inviolable credos -- and the matter goes to "study" within the governing institutions.  That's more or less where matters are today; both sides have retrenched to their corners, each positing that the matter is existential to the conduct of their lives (often a series of overstatements).  I, for one, don't know where all this will go in 15-20 years -- or whether an extensive reconfiguration of city centers will take place in one form or another.  All I know is that the sides need to at least achieve a common sense of communication with one another -- or mistakes will be made that, given the fact that billions of dollars are involved, will be difficult to remedy.       
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 13, 2017, 04:47:14 PM
It seems like giant sized cities have a gravitational tractor beam sucking anyone under age 30 to them. However, it's becoming increasingly possible for smaller cities and towns to start poaching away these young people, even after they move to huge cities. But that's only if the cities and towns have enough job opportunities and quality of life features in place to attract those people.

We've been hearing a lot about income inequality lately. Those differences are becoming excruciatingly painful in many large cities, particularly those in the Northeast and California coast. Living costs in these places have soared to profanely ridiculous levels.

New York City, a place where its 5 boroughs tallied over 2000 murders in 1990 is celebrating the likelihood it will finish 2017 with a new record low homicide count near 300 (and that's with 1 million more people living there now than in 1990). The current record low is 333, set in 2014. Seems great, right? What they're not taking into account is massive levels of gentrification that have spread all over. Former combat zones in the South Bronx and Bedford Stuyvesant turned into relatively safe (and mostly white) areas. Many thousands of apartments that were relatively affordable and rent controlled have been, via measures both legal and not, renovated and flipped to higher income tenants paying far higher rent prices. While it may seem great to price all the "bad people" out of a certain neighborhood, doing so comes at a cost. The soaring prices end up pushing a lot of lower and middle income workers out of the neighborhood or completely out of town. NYC's government is dealing with a ballooning number of homeless people. Many of these people are workers with jobs but can't afford anything but staying in a shelter. The city is even putting some homeless people into hotels! It's easy for a tiny efficiency apartment anywhere in NYC to cost over $2000 per month in rent. An apartment big enough for a wife and kids can go for $5000 per month or more.

Every city needs high income earners to pay into the tax base. But cities can't function without their "ditch diggers" too. Caught in between are millions of middle income workers who are seeing their misery index rise to some degree. Young people leaving college are having a very tough time starting out in major cities due to the lack of affordable housing and other high living costs. The costs can be extreme if they're wanting to start families. Many are having to compromise and share homes or apartments with one or more roommates.

Living costs are often far lower in smaller cities and towns. But low costs alone aren't enough to attract skilled workers seeking refuge from the living cost price gouging happening in elite cities. Opportunity and quality of life amenities are important as well. Cities in Texas have been growing like crazy since there are still pockets of affordability there. But prices are on the rise.

I'm afraid cities and towns in Oklahoma will miss out on the opportunity of attracting people fleeing high cost areas of the country. Oklahoma City itself has been doing moderately well. But statewide Oklahoma is turning into a disaster, all thanks to very short-sighted policy coming from the state government. I expect our public education system to take yet another bone-deep cut in funding thanks to what's currently happening (or not happening) at the state capitol. We have teachers, police and other civic workers leaving in droves for better paying jobs elsewhere.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: silverback1065 on November 14, 2017, 12:49:57 PM
look at the stats, people are continuing to move to cities, it shows no sign of stopping.  rural life will continue to decline. 

And by and large they're taking their existing attitudes with them when they do.  However, very few end up in city centers; recent arrivals from smaller areas tend to cluster in suburbs or even exurbs -- principally because they move for economic reasons rather than a social "sea change".  The more diffused suburban experience is often markedly more reminiscent of their previous situation -- something they can "slide into" with relative ease.  It's simply a matter of self-selection.  Those who prefer city life and its accoutrements are the ones who occupy the condos and/or high-rises in densely packed city cores; again, they self-select into that environment.  Their attitudes tend to gel when in proximity to others of like minds -- including a sense of self-satisfaction with their living choices.  They can't imagine giving up the proximate availability of the conveniences they value; the thought of going elsewhere on a regular or continuing basis just doesn't fit into their particular bounded rationality.  Seeing a freeway in their area, particularly one that eventually heads out to the 'burbs, may strike them as a poor use of available city space -- space that could be utilized to fortify their raison d'etre with housing for more like-minded folks or more of their favored amenities.  Eventually a collective form of that sentiment is politicized (and tribalized) into such things as the freeway tear-down movement seen with I-345 in Dallas, I-81 in Syracuse, and elsewhere, abetted by the urbanist viewpoint (largely affiliated with urban-planning departments at major universities -- their graduates tend to populate if not dominate city planning agencies).  Laying claim to the "high ground" with localized support, these movements tend to affix themselves as the center of attention within a specific situation.  Previous "tear-downs" are cited as successful examples; of course, none of these to date involved severing a major artery (all were spurs or underutilized connectors).  Unfortunately, the discussion has been itself tribalized; the "good/sustainable" urban environment vs. the "misbegotten/wasteful" suburban idiom.  Sides dig in and formulate inviolable credos -- and the matter goes to "study" within the governing institutions.  That's more or less where matters are today; both sides have retrenched to their corners, each positing that the matter is existential to the conduct of their lives (often a series of overstatements).  I, for one, don't know where all this will go in 15-20 years -- or whether an extensive reconfiguration of city centers will take place in one form or another.  All I know is that the sides need to at least achieve a common sense of communication with one another -- or mistakes will be made that, given the fact that billions of dollars are involved, will be difficult to remedy.     

when i said "cities" i meant cities and their suburbs.  i.e. the metro area.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: sparker on November 14, 2017, 03:29:18 PM
look at the stats, people are continuing to move to cities, it shows no sign of stopping.  rural life will continue to decline. 

And by and large they're taking their existing attitudes with them when they do.  However, very few end up in city centers; recent arrivals from smaller areas tend to cluster in suburbs or even exurbs -- principally because they move for economic reasons rather than a social "sea change".  The more diffused suburban experience is often markedly more reminiscent of their previous situation -- something they can "slide into" with relative ease.  It's simply a matter of self-selection.  Those who prefer city life and its accoutrements are the ones who occupy the condos and/or high-rises in densely packed city cores; again, they self-select into that environment.  Their attitudes tend to gel when in proximity to others of like minds -- including a sense of self-satisfaction with their living choices.  They can't imagine giving up the proximate availability of the conveniences they value; the thought of going elsewhere on a regular or continuing basis just doesn't fit into their particular bounded rationality.  Seeing a freeway in their area, particularly one that eventually heads out to the 'burbs, may strike them as a poor use of available city space -- space that could be utilized to fortify their raison d'etre with housing for more like-minded folks or more of their favored amenities.  Eventually a collective form of that sentiment is politicized (and tribalized) into such things as the freeway tear-down movement seen with I-345 in Dallas, I-81 in Syracuse, and elsewhere, abetted by the urbanist viewpoint (largely affiliated with urban-planning departments at major universities -- their graduates tend to populate if not dominate city planning agencies).  Laying claim to the "high ground" with localized support, these movements tend to affix themselves as the center of attention within a specific situation.  Previous "tear-downs" are cited as successful examples; of course, none of these to date involved severing a major artery (all were spurs or underutilized connectors).  Unfortunately, the discussion has been itself tribalized; the "good/sustainable" urban environment vs. the "misbegotten/wasteful" suburban idiom.  Sides dig in and formulate inviolable credos -- and the matter goes to "study" within the governing institutions.  That's more or less where matters are today; both sides have retrenched to their corners, each positing that the matter is existential to the conduct of their lives (often a series of overstatements).  I, for one, don't know where all this will go in 15-20 years -- or whether an extensive reconfiguration of city centers will take place in one form or another.  All I know is that the sides need to at least achieve a common sense of communication with one another -- or mistakes will be made that, given the fact that billions of dollars are involved, will be difficult to remedy.     

when i said "cities" i meant cities and their suburbs.  i.e. the metro area.

Got it.  Nevertheless, among the things that have hastened the flight from rural areas to more urbanized regions is both the consolidation of smaller farms into larger cooperative and corporate "agribusinesses"; this has correspondingly raised the level of available capital, which is invariably put into automation of any amenable agricultural process.  The bottom line is that more crops are capable of being planted, reaped, and processed/packed with vastly fewer personnel -- there are simply far fewer jobs in the field than there were 35-40 years ago.  Except for service-industry jobs within the rural towns, which pose limited employment opportunities regarding both numbers and prospects,  the main option for younger people in their late teens and twenties is to, literally and figuratively, "get out of Dodge" and join the ranks of metro-area jobseekers and jobholders.     
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: kphoger on November 14, 2017, 03:41:36 PM
literally and figuratively, "get out of Dodge"

The population of Dodge City has been going up since 1940, with just the slightest decrease (-700) between 2013 and now.  Over the last "35-40 years", it has grown by more than 50%.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: silverback1065 on November 14, 2017, 06:09:47 PM
being a hoosier, i would want nothing more than for rural towns to come back, if I could have it my way, the lion share of small towns would have strong downtowns, that are good day/weekend trip destinations. 
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: sparker on November 15, 2017, 02:42:11 AM
literally and figuratively, "get out of Dodge"

The population of Dodge City has been going up since 1940, with just the slightest decrease (-700) between 2013 and now.  Over the last "35-40 years", it has grown by more than 50%.

Q1:  In that time frame, can much of the population increase of Dodge City be attributed to people moving into that town from smaller communities nearby?

Q2:  In the "Dodge" realm, what are the population stats of the other one:  Fort Dodge, IA?
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: kphoger on November 15, 2017, 01:23:10 PM
literally and figuratively, "get out of Dodge"

The population of Dodge City has been going up since 1940, with just the slightest decrease (-700) between 2013 and now.  Over the last "35-40 years", it has grown by more than 50%.

Q1:  In that time frame, can much of the population increase of Dodge City be attributed to people moving into that town from smaller communities nearby?

To some degree, I suppose, but Dodge City and other towns in that area of Kansas and Oklahoma have seen a boom in recent decades due to the presence of large-scale meat packing plants.  I only speak anecdotally, having grown up in western Kansas, but I can say that immigration from other countries such as Mexico and Vietnam has played a significant part in the population growth.  They were drawn there with the promise of a high-paying job.  Dodge City, for example, is more than 60% Hispanic today, and you can even take a bus directly to Ciudad Juárez from there.

Q2:  In the "Dodge" realm, what are the population stats of the other one:  Fort Dodge, IA?

I'm not sure how that relates, since the phrase "get the hell out of Dodge" refers to the one in Kansas.  But, since you asked, Fort Dodge's (IA) population peaked around 1970 and has declined by approximately 22% since that time.  Most of that decline happened before 1990, after which point it has gone down by 7% or less (I'm finding conflicting figures for the 1990 census).  The cause of the decline leading up to 1990 was the closing of two big meat-packing plants.



I'm also not sure if should even be thinking of Dodge City or Fort Dodge as "small towns" anyway, considering they both have populations over 20k.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: sparker on November 15, 2017, 03:13:32 PM
I'm not sure how that relates, since the phrase "get the hell out of Dodge" refers to the one in Kansas.  But, since you asked, Fort Dodge's (IA) population peaked around 1970 and has declined by approximately 22% since that time.  Most of that decline happened before 1990, after which point it has gone down by 7% or less (I'm finding conflicting figures for the 1990 census).  The cause of the decline leading up to 1990 was the closing of two big meat-packing plants.



I'm also not sure if should even be thinking of Dodge City or Fort Dodge as "small towns" anyway, considering they both have populations over 20k.

I was actually being facetious with that second question -- but thanks anyway for digging up the data on Ft. Dodge, IA!
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 15, 2017, 04:17:29 PM
There's quite a lot of illegal migrant labor working in cattle processing and meat packing plants out on the high plains. Very few American-born people want those jobs. The pay is not great, working conditions are often unpleasant (disgusting and nightmare-fueling on the livestock slaughtering side of business). Even in the bigger name brand companies that at least try to hire American citizen workers the pay is not high at all. We have a Bar-S plant out on Lawton's West side. Most of those jobs pay only a couple dollars or so above minimum wage.

With all the talk of shutting borders and clamping down on illegal immigration, I'm wondering how all these livestock processing plants, meat packaging plants and other agricultural businesses that sell hand-picked produce are going to do if a big chunk of their labor force gets deported. Americans could be paying a hell of a lot more at the grocery store, and/or we would be eating a hell of a lot more imported food imported from who knows where with who knows what we need to wash off it before eating. Several other industries would be affected, like hotels and construction to name a couple. It's a shame all these industries became moderately to heavily dependent on migrant labor. But a bunch of those problems were self-inflicted in the pursuit of higher profit margins.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: kphoger on November 15, 2017, 04:22:20 PM
Bar-S

cheap, nasty hot dogs...
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: sparker on November 15, 2017, 04:30:21 PM
Bar-S

cheap, nasty hot dogs...

Absolutely concur -- the only national brands of dogs that are worth anything are Hebrew National, Nathan's, and Vienna; out here we also have Farmer John's; if you get the all-beef variety, they're not half bad!  Everything else, IMO, tastes like bland mush in a tube!
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: kphoger on November 15, 2017, 04:36:03 PM
You know they're cheap when the casing sticks to the grill grate...
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 17, 2017, 11:57:32 AM
When you see how hot dogs and other processed cold cuts are made and find out what goes into them you won't want to eat any of it regardless of the brand. Polar opposite of health food.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: sparker on November 17, 2017, 05:07:42 PM
When you see how hot dogs and other processed cold cuts are made and find out what goes into them you won't want to eat any of it regardless of the brand. Polar opposite of health food.

Never though that hot dogs -- or any form of meat sausage, for that matter -- could be in any way confused with health foods.  In a sesame bun, with hot mustard, dill relish, pickled hot peppers, and shredded sharp cheddar, the high-quality ones are awfully good-tasting, though.  I might treat myself to one of those maybe once a month -- and I turn 68 in a couple of weeks, so they haven't killed me yet! 
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: kphoger on November 17, 2017, 05:51:21 PM
Yeah, I don't suppose there are very many people out there thinking of their hot dogs and pepperoni as healthy.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: rte66man on November 18, 2017, 08:21:47 PM
When you see how hot dogs and other processed cold cuts are made and find out what goes into them you won't want to eat any of it regardless of the brand. Polar opposite of health food.

Not true for Hebrew National as they have to pass stringent tests to be certified as kosher.
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: sparker on November 19, 2017, 01:39:45 AM
When you see how hot dogs and other processed cold cuts are made and find out what goes into them you won't want to eat any of it regardless of the brand. Polar opposite of health food.

Not true for Hebrew National as they have to pass stringent tests to be certified as kosher.

Nevertheless, like most cured meats, they contain a fair amount of nitrates & nitrites; it's probably best if one rations the consumption of those compounds to avoid any deleterious effects.  That being said......if I-345 (even if it eventually  becomes part of a I-45 northern extension) were to be trenched and capped in downtown Dallas, the chances of a hot-dog cart showing up on a "city commons" type of cap is pretty damn good! 

And.........after a detour through the wide world of processed meat products, we're more or less back on track!
Title: Re: I-345 in Dallas?
Post by: silverback1065 on November 20, 2017, 12:24:05 PM
When you see how hot dogs and other processed cold cuts are made and find out what goes into them you won't want to eat any of it regardless of the brand. Polar opposite of health food.

Not true for Hebrew National as they have to pass stringent tests to be certified as kosher.

they're also delicious