AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: MaxConcrete on December 14, 2017, 09:31:42 PM

Title: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: MaxConcrete on December 14, 2017, 09:31:42 PM
(New thread started since the previous thread is mostly off-topic)

The major corridor study is being launched. See item 0000003234 at the site below
http://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/advertised-contracts.html (http://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/advertised-contracts.html)

This document has some details on the alternatives to be studied.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/103017/pre-rfq-presentation.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/103017/pre-rfq-presentation.pdf)

The removal option is especially severe, since it turns IH 45 into a boulevard south of IH 30 with no connection to IH 30. The complete removal would be a disaster, and is a poison pill for that option as shown in the document.

That leaves the below-grade option, which also removes the elevated structure south of IH 30. This will be very expensive.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 15, 2017, 01:03:26 AM
What would be the added cost if they decided to do a cut and cover tunnel? Have no exit or entry points to downtown throughout the tunnel. Built solely for through traffic. 4 lanes each way should suffice. Just create new portals which would be expensive at the interchanges. Ventilation and lighting systems add onto the cost. Some money would be saved from not rebuilding the new connections to downtown and Deep Ellum.

It isnít a perfect solution but seems like a good compromise. Would be at least worth studying if they intend on spending all of this money.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Chris on December 15, 2017, 09:08:26 AM
If they can build the I-635 express lanes below grade, they surely could do that with I-345 as well. But I suppose it is harder to get that kind of funding if it is not a capacity upgrade. It means transportation dollars are spent without improving mobility.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: longhorn on December 15, 2017, 09:14:03 AM
345 would have to be closed anyway to trench, so the "no freeway" crowd will still get a taste of what a closed 345 is like.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on December 15, 2017, 10:01:20 AM
Hmm... the removal option is scary. One question, though. Where will Interstate 45, US 75, TX 366, and US 175 be re-routed to? City Streets? If so, which ones?
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: txstateends on December 15, 2017, 01:23:50 PM
Hmm... the removal option is scary. One question, though. Where will Interstate 45, US 75, TX 366, and US 175 be re-routed to? City Streets? If so, which ones?

The anti-345ers don't care about or haven't thought about that.  They also have no idea that Sherman is wanting to get interstate status for US 75 once any remaining non-interstate-quality items there are taken care of.  This would surely mean an extension of I-45 to at least US 82 if Sherman's efforts go through.  There would have to be some kind of retained connection in Dallas for I-45 to be extended. 
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 15, 2017, 03:46:41 PM
I believe they would be crazy to choose the remove alternative. These are likely needed connections. How feasible would the below-grade alternative be?
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: sparker on December 15, 2017, 04:51:28 PM
Hmm... the removal option is scary. One question, though. Where will Interstate 45, US 75, TX 366, and US 175 be re-routed to? City Streets? If so, which ones?

The anti-345ers don't care about or haven't thought about that.  They also have no idea that Sherman is wanting to get interstate status for US 75 once any remaining non-interstate-quality items there are taken care of.  This would surely mean an extension of I-45 to at least US 82 if Sherman's efforts go through.  There would have to be some kind of retained connection in Dallas for I-45 to be extended. 

I suppose it's possible that if an I-45 extension to Sherman and/or the state line could be rerouted around I-635 east of central Dallas if I-345 removal is undertaken -- but it seems like a waste, particularly if the present elevated section is replaced by a cut-and-cover below-grade facility.  If Sherman-area folks are serious about an Interstate upgrade to US 75 -- and want it to actually be an extension of I-45 -- they should at least make contact with the anti-345 folks to discuss alternatives acceptable to both factions (even if it's just to let the urbanists know that they're out there and active in their own pursuits).  It's likely some in the tear-down movement simply want to Make A Point!!! -- but if the matter involves negotiations beyond a binary "yes/no" format, compromises will come into play, likely from less activist quarters that have some sort of a stake in the outcome.  Cut & cover may well be the final outcome -- but that won't emerge from the "teardown" side.   
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: austrini on December 18, 2017, 09:29:31 AM
I'll get lynched here for saying this but I'm an anti-345-er. At least an anti-elevated-345-er. I live near it. It's politically impossible for any politician in Dallas to support any new freeways. Speaking up in defense of 345 in a bar in Deep Ellum will get you mercilessly mocked.

It's already got constant traffic moving at 5 mph, so much so that there are guys begging on most of the ramps and people living under the elevated parts. It's designed like crap and in the rare moments it's not moving at a crawl there is a major accident on it from the weird lane setup. If traffic is going to go that slow we might as well have it go nice and slow at street level.

(https://i.imgur.com/PBf0kH9.jpg)


Regional traffic using 345 to get through the city doesn't provide any economic incentive for the city center and shouldn't be there anyway, there are other ways to get through Dallas.

There doesn't have to be a dichotomy in moving people around so that anything that isn't a big freeway is some kind of traffic hell nightmare.

Also, why should I care what residents in Sherman want? They don't live here. That I should be caring about what some people who live 65 miles north of me want so they can get to Houston 12 minutes faster once or twice a year is misguided. "Oh, some people in Tulsa want to get to College Station, let's live with this big elevated mess above our neighborhood so they're not slightly inconvenienced sometimes."
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 18, 2017, 03:20:15 PM
How much more traffic would use surrounding surface streets and freeways if 345 were removed? Those who want 345 torn down better not complain if they find surrounding roads much more congested than before.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: austrini on December 18, 2017, 03:32:08 PM
How much more traffic would use surrounding surface streets and freeways if 345 were removed? Those who want 345 torn down better not complain if they find surrounding roads much more congested than before.

The guy driving from Sherman to Houston isn't going to navigate Haskell/Peak one way pair, he's just going to go around on 635. Everyone I know in Collin County does that anyway. I work with a lady who lives in Allen and is from Galveston and has not ventured into downtown Dallas since 1996. San Francisco tore down the Embarcadero Freeway and turned the area into a park, the world didn't end. New York City's economy and infrastructure didn't collapse when they tore down the West Side Highway and turned it into a surface street.

I like freeways and all (thats why I'm here) but this particular freeway really sucks. I think most of us are okay with traffic. Cities have traffic. Dallas wants more than anything to be a real city.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 18, 2017, 04:58:45 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster
How much more traffic would use surrounding surface streets and freeways if 345 were removed? Those who want 345 torn down better not complain if they find surrounding roads much more congested than before.

If unsigned I-345 were removed it's a sure bet gridlock on surface streets would become a really serious problem in Deep Ellum and the junction between the N Central and Woodall Rodgers freeways. That is unless direct access to the neighborhood is removed by cutting off the thru roadways coming up from I-45 and down from N Central. That would solve any gridlock issues, but it might be really bad for business in Deep Ellum too.

It's also a sure bet that newly completed Horseshoe Project would get jammed up regardless of what's done about Deep Ellum surface street access to I-45 and N Central. The Horseshoe already funnels I-35E & I-30 traffic through downtown. Adding thru I-45/N Central traffic to that is going to put a serious strain on things.

LBJ Freeway isn't all that great an alternative to using I-45 and N Central to get through Dallas. Even with the completed expansion between I-35E and N Central it's still prone to monster traffic jams every bit as bad or even worse than jams that can occur in the downtown area. Routing I-45 along it is a non-starter.

Another alternative would be routing I-45 along the George W Bush Turnpike. But the GWB isn't going to be completed to the South side of Dallas for many years (if ever). The recent political moves to kill toll road projects threatens to grind any superhighway development to a halt.

Quote from: austrini
Also, why should I care what residents in Sherman want? They don't live here. That I should be caring about what some people who live 65 miles north of me want so they can get to Houston 12 minutes faster once or twice a year is misguided.

I have plenty of friends and relatives who live in the Dallas area and none of them spend 100% of their time in their own local neighborhoods. They regularly have to drive to other parts of the metroplex or places out of town. Lots of people who work and play in Downtown Dallas live out in the suburbs and exhurbs of the DFW area. As rapidly as the DFW region is adding population the highway traffic capacity needs are only going to grow. It's already enough of a pain in the ass to get in and out of downtown Dallas. Removing that Southern-most 1.5 miles of N Central Expressway will increase the pain in the ass factor even worse.

I'll certainly agree the existing section of N Central between I-30 and Woodall Rodgers is an eyesore and works to divide downtown and Deep Ellum. I think the best solution, but also most costly, is to replace the elevated freeway with a cut & cover tunnel similar to building Klyde Warren Park over 3 blocks of the Woodall Rodgers Freeway.

Quote from: austrini
San Francisco tore down the Embarcadero Freeway and turned the area into a park, the world didn't end. New York City's economy and infrastructure didn't collapse when they tore down the West Side Highway and turned it into a surface street.

Comparing the West Side Highway/West Street in NYC and the Embarcadero to the first 1.5 miles of North Central Expressway is an apples to oranges comparison. The West Side Highway and Embarcadero were not along major thru traffic corridors. When those two freeways were removed/stubbed their host cities were already pedestrian friendly and had well developed subway and bus systems. The DFW metro is still very much a vehicle-centric region. The Dallas light rail system and regional passenger rail networks aren't yet developed enough to provide an effective alternative to car travel for everyone in that region.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: 1 on December 18, 2017, 05:04:13 PM

Another alternative would be routing I-45 along the George W Bush Turnpike. But the GWB isn't going to be completed to the South side of Dallas for many years (if ever). The recent political moves to kill toll road projects threatens to grind any superhighway development to a halt.

It's not named after Dubya.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 18, 2017, 07:25:37 PM

Also, why should I care what residents in Sherman want? They don't live here. That I should be caring about what some people who live 65 miles north of me want so they can get to Houston 12 minutes faster once or twice a year is misguided. "Oh, some people in Tulsa want to get to College Station, let's live with this big elevated mess above our neighborhood so they're not slightly inconvenienced sometimes."
Well for one because you live in a city and people have a right to live differently than in a concrete jungle while being able to quick access to downtown.

With your logic, it seems anyone could say about any infrastructure project including interstates. Just because they donít use it or see benifit in it doesnít mean it doesnít contribute to moving good and getting people to and from work.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: sparker on December 18, 2017, 07:58:51 PM
It seems like a cut-and-cover substitute for the present viaduct is likely the optimal solution for all involved: city residents, suburban commuters, and what through traffic there is.  If the more militant want to dance on the area where the former elevated facility was sited, they can do so quite easily on a nice landscaped "city-commons" type cap.  Won't be cheap by any means, but it does function as a workable solution. 
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on December 19, 2017, 02:52:43 AM
Anybody who thinks turning US 75 and I-45 into a street is fucking high and isn't thinking rationally. I-635 is not an option because it is way out of the way and would have to be widened to 20 lanes to handle the extra traffic. The anti-car Nazis can go fuck themselves. If they hate cars so much, they should buy a bunch of farmland and build their own car-free utopia out there and leave the rest of us alone.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2017, 03:27:12 AM
^ +1! This is coming from a millennial lol
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Chris on December 19, 2017, 08:50:50 AM
These are the 2016 traffic counts by TxDOT

(https://i.imgur.com/uuEUL4I.png)

177,000 vehicles per day is a serious traffic volume. According to the map, this is the volume between all exits to Downtown Dallas, so it is through traffic. You can't just detour this traffic via I-35E or I-635. Apart from the required additional mainline capacity, it would also require significant reconstruction of the freeway-to-freeway interchanges, because a typical 1 or 2 lane connector is not designed to handle that kind of additional traffic.

I think they should put the freeway below grade with eight lanes and handle downtown-bound traffic via surface streets, where it can disperse across the grid. A freeway similar to the Woodall Rodgers, but with a longer deck, between 1 and 1.5 mile in length. This will be benificial to both mobility and the city for decades to come.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: austrini on December 19, 2017, 10:34:54 AM
Anybody who thinks turning US 75 and I-45 into a street is fucking high and isn't thinking rationally. I-635 is not an option because it is way out of the way and would have to be widened to 20 lanes to handle the extra traffic. The anti-car Nazis can go fuck themselves. If they hate cars so much, they should buy a bunch of farmland and build their own car-free utopia out there and leave the rest of us alone.

Wow Jeremy. Great retort. Hope you win something.

I'm not anti freeway, i'm anti this tiny elevated piece of crap.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: 1 on December 19, 2017, 10:37:00 AM
If I-345 and part of US 75 were instead part of I-45, the removal discussion wouldn't even be happening.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: sparker on December 19, 2017, 11:50:41 AM
If I-345 and part of US 75 were instead part of I-45, the removal discussion wouldn't even be happening.

Well then.......the folks from up in Sherman need to get off their butts and sit down with their local MPO, TxDOT, and whoever else will listen (maybe their congressperson?) and get I-45 commissioned over both I-345 and US 75 to the OK state line -- just like the folks out by Fort Hood got I-14 signed, sealed, and delivered over their 25-mile stretch of US 190.  That certainly would add a new wrinkle to the mix! -- and it's not like this is anything new to Texas.

After that: O.K., OK: your move! 
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2017, 12:57:15 PM
Anybody who thinks turning US 75 and I-45 into a street is fucking high and isn't thinking rationally. I-635 is not an option because it is way out of the way and would have to be widened to 20 lanes to handle the extra traffic. The anti-car Nazis can go fuck themselves. If they hate cars so much, they should buy a bunch of farmland and build their own car-free utopia out there and leave the rest of us alone.

Wow Jeremy. Great retort. Hope you win something.

I'm not anti freeway, i'm anti this tiny elevated piece of crap.
You come off as pretty anti freeway, not just because you oppose this one.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Brian556 on December 19, 2017, 01:13:37 PM
Remember that tunnels pose a danger in the event of accident with fire. Elevated is way safer.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: austrini on December 19, 2017, 01:56:37 PM
Quote
You come off as pretty anti freeway, not just because you oppose this one.

If the thousands of photos on this website I've taken since 2002 don't convince you otherwise maybe this analogy will:

I really like cars but I'm anti 1972 Ford Pinto. This particular freeway just sucks.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: silverback1065 on December 19, 2017, 02:13:42 PM
is this just called 345 just for federal funds?  i see no reason why this isn't just signed as just us 75. 
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 19, 2017, 02:51:19 PM
If complete removal of I-345 was going to be an option that issue should have been settled 15 years ago when the Horseshoe Project was still in its planning stages. The Horseshoe could have been designed to handle at least some of the traffic burden coming from I-45.

TX DOT appears to be promoting the buried freeway option and thankfully at least some city leaders in Dallas seem receptive to that as opposed to completely removing the freeway.

For I-345 to be completely removed from downtown Dallas and not cause major traffic increases on surface streets and other freeways I-45 would have to be removed clear down to I-20. They might as well tear out the US-175 freeway in South Dallas (and that new connecter under construction linking the C F Hawn Freeway with I-45). That funnels a bunch of traffic into downtown via I-45 too.

By the way, I've heard new urbanist types campaigning for the removal of I-30 from downtown Dallas as well, which is an even more ridiculous propositon. What's next? Get rid of I-35E as well? I don't know about anyone else, but there's no way in hell I would visit a giant city's downtown area if I had to drive through dozens of traffic lights to get there. I would only visit destinations in the suburbs. The funny thing is I pretty much do that already with trips down to the Dallas area.

As for pitching mass transit, the park and ride concept may work for commuters who work in the downtown area. It's not so practical an idea for tourists and other visitors. That might explain why the biggest tourist attractions in the DFW area are not in downtown Dallas.

I lived in New York City for 5 years. I rode the bus and subway there frequently. But it wasn't something I wanted to do. It was something I had to do. I knew plenty of people who flatly refused to ride the subway. They did so out of fear of crime (which was bad back then). They also hated the crushing crowds, nasty smells and other unpleasant features. It was as still is a status symbol to at least take a cab, drive or have a car service.

Quote from: austrini
I'm not anti freeway, i'm anti this tiny elevated piece of crap.

I wouldn't exactly call that elevated freeway "tiny." It's pretty big, but it is ugly too.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Stormwalker on December 19, 2017, 02:53:40 PM
Quote
You come off as pretty anti freeway, not just because you oppose this one.

If the thousands of photos on this website I've taken since 2002 don't convince you otherwise maybe this analogy will:

I really like cars but I'm anti 1972 Ford Pinto. This particular freeway just sucks.

I think everyone agrees that I-345 as it currently exists is terrible, and not just because It's an eyesore.  The traffic flow is terrible.  Large scale reworking is needed.

Even so, making it a city street is not the answer.  Either an improved elevated freeway or a tunnel like Woodall Rogers is needed to meet the traffic flow requirements. 

Speaking as a resident of Dallas (proper, not suburb), I think that even if a new (likely insanely expensive) bypass of Dallas was built and all I-35E and I-45 traffic rerouted, the local traffic alone would still need an I-345 in some form

EDIT: corrected types (really should not use phone to post!)
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: austrini on December 19, 2017, 03:10:09 PM
These are the 2016 traffic counts by TxDOT

(https://i.imgur.com/uuEUL4I.png)

177,000 vehicles per day is a serious traffic volume. According to the map, this is the volume between all exits to Downtown Dallas, so it is through traffic. You can't just detour this traffic via I-35E or I-635. Apart from the required additional mainline capacity, it would also require significant reconstruction of the freeway-to-freeway interchanges, because a typical 1 or 2 lane connector is not designed to handle that kind of additional traffic.

I think they should put the freeway below grade with eight lanes and handle downtown-bound traffic via surface streets, where it can disperse across the grid. A freeway similar to the Woodall Rodgers, but with a longer deck, between 1 and 1.5 mile in length. This will be benificial to both mobility and the city for decades to come.

OK, let's say you have 177,000 vehicles per day. If they are passing through, they don't need to be in the center city. That's why Washington has a beltway, Atlanta has a perimeter, London has an orbital, and Dallas has 635, 161, or LOOP 12 (or lots of other freeways actually). How many does that get rid of?

Then you have people going into downtown. There no reason for anyone with a destination in downtown to need a freeway THROUGH downtown. How many does that get rid of?

Then you have people going from the northern parts of the city to the southern parts. In fact the only remaining people are going from one specific area of Dallas to another specific area of Dallas - because every other direction has a better route. In that instance the remaining motorists, of which there aren't that many, are welcome to use the 22 6-lane and 6 4-lane  arterial routes that serve those areas. Ta da.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Stormwalker on December 19, 2017, 03:53:35 PM
177,000 vehicles per day is a serious traffic volume. According to the map, this is the volume between all exits to Downtown Dallas, so it is through traffic. You can't just detour this traffic via I-35E or I-635. Apart from the required additional mainline capacity, it would also require significant reconstruction of the freeway-to-freeway interchanges, because a typical 1 or 2 lane connector is not designed to handle that kind of additional traffic.

I think they should put the freeway below grade with eight lanes and handle downtown-bound traffic via surface streets, where it can disperse across the grid. A freeway similar to the Woodall Rodgers, but with a longer deck, between 1 and 1.5 mile in length. This will be benificial to both mobility and the city for decades to come.

OK, let's say you have 177,000 vehicles per day. If they are passing through, they don't need to be in the center city. That's why Washington has a beltway, Atlanta has a perimeter, London has an orbital, and Dallas has 635, 161, or LOOP 12 (or lots of other freeways actually). How many does that get rid of?

Then you have people going into downtown. There no reason for anyone with a destination in downtown to need a freeway THROUGH downtown. How many does that get rid of?

Then you have people going from the northern parts of the city to the southern parts. In fact the only remaining people are going from one specific area of Dallas to another specific area of Dallas - because every other direction has a better route. In that instance the remaining motorists, of which there aren't that many, are welcome to use the 22 6-lane and 6 4-lane  arterial routes that serve those areas. Ta da.

That's nice in theory.  Personally, I think it would have been better if I-45 and I-35E had bypassed Dallas to begin with instead of going through the city center (we'd still need arterial freeways for local traffic, however).  In practice, it just doesn't fly, because...

1). 635 can't remotely handle that traffic.  It can't really handle the traffic it has now.  Expanding it to the size it would need to be to handle that much traffic is not at all feasible - the right-of-way issues in some areas (especially the northeast quarter) make it impossible.  You'd have to build a completely new outer loop - how much would that cost, and would the through traffic be willing to go that far out of the way to the east to begin with?

2). Loop 12 certainly can't handle it.  The west part of Loop 12 is the only segment which is a freeway; the rest of it is on city streets.  There's no really viable connector from I-35E to Loop 12 in the south, much less I-45... you'd have to divert traffic onto I-20 West and then to Spur 408, neither of which is ready for that load... nor is the freeway segment of Loop 12 itself, which already has congestion issues of its own.

3). What "lots of other freeways?".  Dallas' freeway and tollway system consists of...
a). Radial routes through the city center - the "spokes" in Dallas' wagon wheel layout:
b). Circumferential routes - none of which provides a complete loop freeway
c). Connectors

The "other freeways" you seem to think should be handling this traffic do not exist.  They would have to be built; while that's a great idea, and might be the best long-term solution for Dallas' traffic problems, where's the money going to come from?  And what about the people who live in the areas where those freeways would be built?  They wouldn't be any happier about that than Deep Ellum residents are about I-345.  Finally, what's going to happen during the time between tearing down I-345 and building the new freeways?  It'd make downtown a bigger traffic nightmare than it already is.

In the end, Dallas' freeway system is designed to route traffic through downtown.  Unless you first change that, removing I-345 would be nothing short of a disaster.

EDIT: Fixed wonky formatting, added SH 183 which I initially forgot.[/list]
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: austrini on December 19, 2017, 04:44:31 PM
What do you mean by can't handle - you mean you can't physically fit more cars on them or what? What are you basing that assertion on? What's the capacity that they'd have to bear that they can't handle? What part of the 345 AADT gets shifted to Loop 12, 635, 161, 360, PGBT? You mean its going to be stop and go traffic for 4 hours a day like it is now? so? 635 just can't handle it.

You can't bury it, there's a subway going in. I guess you could finagle it under or over the subway tunnel.

The TxDOT CityMap study http://dallascitymap.com/results.html#home doesn't say the others can't handle it.

I'll give you one thing, there is a dog park under 345 that's dry on rainy days like today and it's very nice to walk the dog down there.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: 1 on December 19, 2017, 04:48:53 PM
What do you mean by can't handle - you mean you can't physically fit more cars on them or what? What are you basing that assertion on? What's the capacity that they'd have to bear that they can't handle? What part of the 345 AADT gets shifted to Loop 12, 635, 161, 360, PGBT? You mean its going to be stop and go traffic for 4 hours a day like it is now? so? 635 just can't handle it.

You can't bury it, there's a subway going in. I guess you could finagle it under or over the subway tunnel.

The TxDOT CityMap study http://dallascitymap.com/results.html#home doesn't say the others can't handle it.

I'll give you one thing, there is a dog park under 345 that's dry on rainy days like today and it's very nice to walk the dog down there.

Yes. Roads do have a maximum capacity, usually around 2200 vehicles per hour per lane. And this number corresponds with traffic that is slightly congested but almost at free-flow speeds ó adding any cars past this point decreases traffic flow.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 19, 2017, 05:40:01 PM
Well, this thread went as expected.

austrini, I'm 100% with you on this one. 345 isn't needed. However, any sort of freeway removal has a tendency to rustle tribal jimmies.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Stormwalker on December 19, 2017, 05:43:07 PM
What do you mean by can't handle - you mean you can't physically fit more cars on them or what? What are you basing that assertion on? What's the capacity that they'd have to bear that they can't handle? What part of the 345 AADT gets shifted to Loop 12, 635, 161, 360, PGBT? You mean its going to be stop and go traffic for 4 hours a day like it is now? so? 635 just can't handle it.

You can't bury it, there's a subway going in. I guess you could finagle it under or over the subway tunnel.

The TxDOT CityMap study http://dallascitymap.com/results.html#home doesn't say the others can't handle it.

I'll give you one thing, there is a dog park under 345 that's dry on rainy days like today and it's very nice to walk the dog down there.

When you add more traffic to a highway which already has hours of stop-and-go traffic, those hours are extended, they don't just stay the same.

Expansion of I-635 to enable it to handle it's current and projected traffic loads is planned, but it is currently unfunded and likely to be very, very expensive, as the most likely solution involves burying lanes in a trench as there is nowhere else to put them; the ROW is very cramped.  Expanding it further to accommodate through traffic loads on top of that... I'm not sure that would even be possible. 

Putting I-345 in a cut-and-cover trench, as costly as it would be, is almost certainly less expensive than expanding 635 to act as a Dallas bypass for all through traffic would be!

As noted, in principle I agree that through traffic should not be routed through city centers.  Unfortnately, that's what Dallas' freeway system is currently built to do Removing 345 will not fix that.

You can't just remove a critical thoroughfare without providing that traffic another way to go.  If you want to remove 345, that's fine... fix the system so 345 is no longer needed, then get rid of it.  For now, It's essential.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: austrini on December 19, 2017, 06:46:02 PM
Well, this thread went as expected.

austrini, I'm 100% with you on this one. 345 isn't needed. However, any sort of freeway removal has a tendency to rustle tribal jimmies.

Well, we can't inconvenience anyone from Plano. Heaven forbid they have to drive through Mesquite or Irving. How horrible would it be to be like Vancouver or Paris and not have freeways in the city center. Not even no freeways, just one less.

It's an interesting case study because there are thousands of local people who want 2.5 billion dollars in added property value and a quieter neighborhood, and a subway. Then you have armchair commentators from Oklahoma who are annoyed that it might take longer to get to the beach. The TxDot Citymap study referenced will explain more, and my inkling (that the existing study says) is that removing 345 isn't really that big of deal.

I love Star Trek. I'm a nerd. As a lover of Star Trek I have to admit that like 20% of Star Trek is mindbogglingly stupid. That's OK, I still love it. Same with roads. I don't want a freeway along the National Mall. I love the 635 express lanes.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2017, 07:45:38 PM
Quote
You come off as pretty anti freeway, not just because you oppose this one.

If the thousands of photos on this website I've taken since 2002 don't convince you otherwise maybe this analogy will:

I really like cars but I'm anti 1972 Ford Pinto. This particular freeway just sucks.
Okay but the words you use really seem to imply you feel a certain type of way regardless of what pictures you take. I hardly ever take pictures of freeways but I love freeways. So that doesnít really mean much.

But youíre simply saying remove it because it sucks ans fuck the people in Plano, well there are so many other instances and freeways where that logic could be implied. Even more so, why should Central Expressway be anything more than 2 lanes each way? I mean fuck the people that live far out and use them! Think of how many housing units could be built where the expanded lanes are?! Why should the residents of Highland Park have to deal with a freeway tearing through their neighborhood because some people want to live in Frisco and commute to downtown? Why should the 635 exist because it creates such a big barrier to those living right by it? I can go on and on.

The case of this freeway being in a heavily urban area that should be made more walkable requires attention. But a removal option creates a problem while solving another(it helping walkability is quite debatable). How about solving two problems. The area needs to be more walkable and commuters are an important part of the city and need mobility. A tunnel best serves this purpose. Unless of course you think people living in the suburbs donít contribute anything to the metro.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2017, 07:48:30 PM
Well, this thread went as expected.

austrini, I'm 100% with you on this one. 345 isn't needed. However, any sort of freeway removal has a tendency to rustle tribal jimmies.

Well, we can't inconvenience anyone from Plano. Heaven forbid they have to drive through Mesquite or Irving.
So where is the line drawn with this logic then? Because you can say the same thing about tons of other freeways that commuters could go through x community if y freeway is taken out. Where does it stop? Just with the freeway next to you? Uptown canít use that logic?
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Stormwalker on December 19, 2017, 07:51:51 PM
Well, this thread went as expected.

austrini, I'm 100% with you on this one. 345 isn't needed. However, any sort of freeway removal has a tendency to rustle tribal jimmies.

It's an interesting case study because there are thousands of local people who want 2.5 billion dollars in added property value and a quieter neighborhood, and a subway. Then you have armchair commentators from Oklahoma who are annoyed that it might take longer to get to the beach. The TxDot Citymap study referenced will explain more, and my inkling (that the existing study says) is that removing 345 isn't really that big of deal..

If TxDOT believed that, they wouldn't be promoting the (very, very expensive!) cut-and-cover idea.  Which, incidentally, provides all the benefits you listed above and also provides for traffic to get where it needs to go.

Also, your repeated characterization of everyone who disagrees with you as "armchair commentators from Oklahoma" undermines your argument.  I for one oppose the removal of I-345 vehemently, and I am a lifelong resident of the Dallas area, and a current resident of the City of Dallas.

For what it is worth, I favor the cut-and-cover approach, even though, the likely expense makes me cringe.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2017, 08:15:21 PM
Is a cut and cover approach even being considered? Maybe I misread the study, but it seems they are only proposing a below grade option with a cap in the middle. Not a full cut cover apart from the freeway cap.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 19, 2017, 08:28:02 PM
Quote from: austrini
OK, let's say you have 177,000 vehicles per day. If they are passing through, they don't need to be in the center city. That's why Washington has a beltway, Atlanta has a perimeter, London has an orbital, and Dallas has 635, 161, or LOOP 12 (or lots of other freeways actually). How many does that get rid of?

Last time I checked Washington, DC still had I-66, I-395, I-295/695 going right into the center of the city. Add to that a number of parkways and expressways that come close to DC. Not everyone uses the Capitol Beltway. A shit-ton of traffic uses I-395.

As for Atlanta, same thing. I-20, I-75 and I-85 go right thru downtown. The combined I-75/I-85 roadway is 14 or 16 lanes across in some places.

As for London, it's very easy to understand why there's no freeways running right through the middle of the city. There's only a jillion old historical buildings that were crammed into the city center many hundreds of years old before the car was invented. But the city is completely covered with all kinds of streets. Cities in the United States aren't nearly that old. They weren't designed around horse drawn carriages and people on foot.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: sparker on December 19, 2017, 09:34:05 PM
Is a cut and cover approach even being considered? Maybe I misread the study, but it seems they are only proposing a below grade option with a cap in the middle. Not a full cut cover apart from the freeway cap.

From what I understand, the below-grade option does specify a cap rather that a classic "cut & cover", which sui generis essentially means a deeper cut so that a significant earth layer (enough to support many types of foliage) can be placed atop the through facility's ceiling (similar to I-5 through Seattle).  A metal/concrete "cap", normally placed on joists above the freeway, can support traffic and possesses enough of a weight rating to handle anything that might show up in a city commons area (food trucks, for example) -- but not thick enough for root systems.  So what's on top might look more like a paved commons than a city park.  There will be some active ventilation required, of course; that'll need to be located somewhere along the edge of the cap itself.  Nevertheless, it would be an improvement over what's presently in place -- and actually much better than the boulevard approach, which would host much more in the way of pollution generators than a walkable city commons.     
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: texaskdog on December 19, 2017, 10:30:35 PM
Why not do what they keep doing in Austin?  Stripe it to one lane in each direction and the rest is for bikes...everyone here seems to think that will solve all traffic problems.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Chris on December 20, 2017, 05:52:44 AM
The vast majority of traffic on I-345 would likely originate within a 20-30 mile radius of Downtown Dallas, even though it may not necessarily have a destination in Downtown (at I-35E, 80% of traffic just passes through). There's no need to caricaturize it as a freeway solely for people from Houston to Oklahoma, that would be only a tiny fraction of those 177,000 vehicles per day.

While the cost of putting it below grade would likely be high, the cost of upgrading tens of miles of existing freeways and reconstructing many interchanges would be much greater.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 20, 2017, 09:46:31 AM
The vast majority of traffic on I-345 would likely originate within a 20-30 mile radius of Downtown Dallas, even though it may not necessarily have a destination in Downtown (at I-35E, 80% of traffic just passes through). There's no need to caricaturize it as a freeway solely for people from Houston to Oklahoma, that would be only a tiny fraction of those 177,000 vehicles per day.

While the cost of putting it below grade would likely be high, the cost of upgrading tens of miles of existing freeways and reconstructing many interchanges would be much greater.

This is a situation where local, on-the-ground information contradicts what might be logical from how the system is laid out. From personal experience and that of others I know, everything austrini is saying is completely correct - you're simply not getting onto I-45 from North Dallas and Collin County  unless you're headed to Ennis or south. There is no significant local traffic in that corridor, and this is part of why it was so late to be built.

The cost of upgrading the existing freeways and interchanges may be greater, but they would also have much stronger network effects than sinking billions into 345.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: austrini on December 20, 2017, 10:45:49 AM
Last time I checked Washington, DC still had I-66, I-395, I-295/695 going right into the center of the city. Add to that a number of parkways and expressways that come close to DC. Not everyone uses the Capitol Beltway. A shit-ton of traffic uses I-395.

As for Atlanta, same thing. I-20, I-75 and I-85 go right thru downtown. The combined I-75/I-85 roadway is 14 or 16 lanes across in some places.

People don't drive through central DC when they're driving from NYC to Miami. My point was that city centers don't need long haul traffic going through them. It doesn't economically benefit the city at all. That's why there are loops. That's the point of having them in the first place. If interstate traffic was meant to drive through city centers it makes the whole beltway system that Eisenhower envisioned a little bit pointless.

edit: or Roosevelt or whomever.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: austrini on December 20, 2017, 11:05:52 AM
If TxDOT believed that, they wouldn't be promoting the (very, very expensive!) cut-and-cover idea.  Which, incidentally, provides all the benefits you listed above and also provides for traffic to get where it needs to go.

Also, your repeated characterization of everyone who disagrees with you as "armchair commentators from Oklahoma" undermines your argument.  I for one oppose the removal of I-345 vehemently, and I am a lifelong resident of the Dallas area, and a current resident of the City of Dallas.

For what it is worth, I favor the cut-and-cover approach, even though, the likely expense makes me cringe.

I am also a resident and live next to the stupid thing. Hell, I was born less than a mile from it. I said "armchair commentators from Oklahoma" one time. Not repeatedly and never once did I say "everyone who disagrees with me". Did I? It's not personal, it's just a throwback to an old planning ethos that is flawed. It has very, very, little pass-through local traffic (read the TxDot study, it's about 10%). You can look at it on a map and say, oh, it's a very important regional artery - it's not. No one is suggesting we remove Stemmons, Central, LBJ. Those are actually important and useful. Central is an example of how to do a freeway correctly, too. No one is suggesting to remove Woodall Rodgers. People are suggesting we remove this big structure that blocks two of the city's most important neighborhoods from each other, provides a great place to buy heroin at night, and provides people who just moved to Dallas white knuckle lane changing terror nightmares. If you live here, and you use it, where the hell are you going? It doesnt even go anywhere. You can use it to go to Ennis. You can use it to go to the impound lot when your car gets towed. You can use it to go to the big ass landfill. You can use it to go to the state fair for a couple weeks, but now everyone just takes the train because they rape you on parking.

I don't think burying or building below grade is an option, D2 is going in.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Perfxion on December 20, 2017, 12:40:53 PM
Texas highway system doesn't use the logic of the grid of the east coast. Like the power system, Texas is own its own. Houston and Dallas were dumb to build their highway systems to flow into their city centers and not on the edge or outside like other places. So getting rid of I-345, I-30, I-45, I-10, I-69 would be really dumb as it would crash the system. The whole spoke and wheel style doesn't help move traffic as the metro areas keep growing and nowhere to flow.

I-345 should be cut and covered, or a new highway built before I-20 to US75.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 20, 2017, 02:42:17 PM
Quote from: austrini
People don't drive through central DC when they're driving from NYC to Miami. My point was that city centers don't need long haul traffic going through them. It doesn't economically benefit the city at all. That's why there are loops. That's the point of having them in the first place. If interstate traffic was meant to drive through city centers it makes the whole beltway system that Eisenhower envisioned a little bit pointless.

The fact remains there's still a shit load of people working in city centers like downtown Dallas. There's lot of other people visiting tourist spots, eating and socializing downtown. Most of those people do not live in or near downtown. There's your economic benefit for freeways into downtown right there.

This is why every major city in the United States has at least some sort of direct super highway access in its city center. Even in the early days of the Interstate highway system they were building freeways into the downtown areas. Most major cities still have large superhighways going through the central downtown areas. If you remove all the super highways in Dallas inside of the I-635 loop you'll see downtown Dallas fall into decay. No one will want to tolerate driving through dozens upon dozens of traffic lights just to get downtown. And taking mass transit doesn't live up to the Utopian image the New Urbanists are selling either.

Quote from: austrini
I don't think burying or building below grade is an option, D2 is going in.

You do realize tunnels can be built on more than one level so they can cross over/under each other underground, right? There are examples of road & rail tunnels crossing each other underground in New York City, Boston and Washington DC.

Plus, the D2 thing is not a 100% done deal. They've settled on a preferred alternative alignment (which would cross under N Central at Swiss Ave). But the project is not all funded and not all the planning work is done either. Dallas is wanting to build a 26 mile Cotton Belt commuter rail line. They need to raise at least $2 billion for those projects, with a big chunk of it coming from federal sources. Good luck with that considering the current administration's ideology and the big tax cuts they just passed.

Quote from: Perfxion
Texas highway system doesn't use the logic of the grid of the east coast. Like the power system, Texas is own its own. Houston and Dallas were dumb to build their highway systems to flow into their city centers and not on the edge or outside like other places. So getting rid of I-345, I-30, I-45, I-10, I-69 would be really dumb as it would crash the system. The whole spoke and wheel style doesn't help move traffic as the metro areas keep growing and nowhere to flow.

Please name these "other places" along the East Coast that have Interstate beltways but no super highways at all flowing into the city centers. What cities are you talking about specifically?
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: austrini on December 20, 2017, 02:51:12 PM
The fact remains there's still a shit load of people working in city centers like downtown Dallas. There's lot of other people visiting tourist spots, eating and socializing downtown. Most of those people do not live in or near downtown. There's your economic benefit for freeways into downtown right there.

Uhhh, if people are going to point B you don't need a freeway through point B.


Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 20, 2017, 03:55:20 PM
I see DC mentioned a bit so I figured I'd chime in.

Having a freeway cut through a central business district isn't terribly important to local economic health; neither DC nor NYC have freeways bisecting their prime central business districts (downtown for DC, midtown and lower Manhattan for NYC) and they're both doing fine, in terms of real estate and visitors. Driving on city streets isn't the end of the world.



Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 20, 2017, 04:42:35 PM
Quote from: austrini
Uhhh, if people are going to point B you don't need a freeway through point B.

That's assuming everyone going to downtown Dallas is only going there from one direction. And that also assumes that everyone is going to the same destinations in Central Dallas.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA
Having a freeway cut through a central business district isn't terribly important to local economic health; neither DC nor NYC have freeways bisecting their prime central business districts (downtown for DC, midtown and lower Manhattan for NYC) and they're both doing fine, in terms of real estate and visitors. Driving on city streets isn't the end of the world.

Austrini (and now Perfxion) are tossing out this notion that cities that have their shit together only have a beltway and no super highway "spokes" going inside of that beltway. Both NYC and DC still have freeways reaching deep into the central business districts.

The West Side highway was turned into West Street South of 57th Street, but the FDR freeway on the East side of Manhattan still exists. The Battery Tunnel and Brooklyn Bridge both act as super highway spurs off the BQE into lower Manhattan. I-78 terminates in SoHo. 34th Street functions as a type of Breezewood for I-495. It's not like Manhattan or metro NYC is devoid of freeways inside the I-287 beltway.

If you remove the I-395, I-695, I-66, I-295/DC-295 and US-50 freeways from inside the Capitol Beltway it would seem like the end of the world to commuters all over the Greater DC area. That especially goes for I-395.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: sparker on December 20, 2017, 04:50:21 PM
The fact remains there's still a shit load of people working in city centers like downtown Dallas. There's lot of other people visiting tourist spots, eating and socializing downtown. Most of those people do not live in or near downtown. There's your economic benefit for freeways into downtown right there.

Uhhh, if people are going to point B you don't need a freeway through point B.

The concept of all through traffic flowing around the perimeter of a metro area was one of the concepts Eisenhower appropriated from the Autobahn network (that eventually morphed into the Euro "E/M" system of interregional limited-access highways) for the nascent Interstate system.  However, after WWII the demographic changes in metro areas -- with large blocs of folks heading out to the suburbs -- led cities, through their administrators and the state and federal representatives from those cities, to request Interstate facilities directly through the city centers to provide access from the perimeter to the middle.  They were worried that the cash flow provided by the folks moving outward wouldn't find its way back into the city centers without access by the increasingly prevalent common transportation mode -- the automobile.  Thus, either trunk interstates or urban loops were provided in the initial "final" iteration of the system.  With more political power shifting from rural to urban during and after the war, it was clear that without that concession to the cities (which added hundreds of miles to the network) the '56 Interstate act would have not likely passed.  At that time, cities were attempting to maintain their position as the "hubs" of their metro areas in the political, economic, and social sense; they welcomed traffic into and out of their city centers because it made economic sense to do so -- and they wanted the egress to be as efficient as possible. 

Now that concept has been essentially "stood on its head" by the movements to limit or inhibit access from the outside to city centers, which have in recent decades been considered in some circles to be functional "urban reservations" dedicated more to a particular set of social philosophies (loosely communitarian and often less concerned with economic details); the concept of a regional "hub" has been subsumed and replaced by a more utopian -- and often "retro" -- viewpoint that posits that retreat to the pre-freeway days with "boulevards" instead criss-crossing the city center provides some sort of "urban retreat" in a psychological sense; a place where folks can gather and socialize absent any visible connection to what's beyond downtown. 

But unless those boulevards are configured as "transit-only" (something which, IIRC, hasn't been proposed for central Dallas), there still will be countless cars, vans, and trucks making their way through the streets -- all with reason to be there.  No one drives in city traffic for recreation; they're there because they need to be -- more often than not for commercial purposes.  Sometimes I wonder if the folks proposing freeway teardowns or various traffic inhibitors bother to ask the businesses and merchants in the affected area their assessment of the effects of such actions.  Only some central city businesses can exist solely through sales to local residents (maybe a Starbucks or three); most need as many customers as they can get to walk through their doors regardless of point of origin.  They've got enough trouble competing with online sources and vendors; functionally depriving them of sales because folks not living close are actively or passively discouraged from downtown patronization isn't likely conducive to the continued economic vitality of the neighborhood. 

One thing I just can't understand is outright dismissal of "undergrounding" a facility like 345 in favor of outright removal + boulevardization -- but then I don't have an ideological itch to scratch -- just a concern for the well-being of the whole region (even those folks from Sherman) -- and that includes downtown Dallas merchants.       
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 20, 2017, 05:37:18 PM
If you remove the I-395, I-695, I-66, I-295/DC-295 and US-50 freeways from inside the Capitol Beltway it would seem like the end of the world to commuters all over the Greater DC area. That especially goes for I-395.

None of those freeways really cut through the heart of the city. They take you to the edge of the CBD but you have to go the rest of your way on local roads. The closest you can argue is the Center Leg Freeway portion of 395 which ends at NY Avenue, but most commuters don't go that far north on 395 anyway.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: sparker on December 20, 2017, 06:26:44 PM
If you remove the I-395, I-695, I-66, I-295/DC-295 and US-50 freeways from inside the Capitol Beltway it would seem like the end of the world to commuters all over the Greater DC area. That especially goes for I-395.

None of those freeways really cut through the heart of the city. They take you to the edge of the CBD but you have to go the rest of your way on local roads. The closest you can argue is the Center Leg Freeway portion of 395 which ends at NY Avenue, but most commuters don't go that far north on 395 anyway.

While none of those freeways serve the D.C. CBD per se, what they do particularly well is distribute traffic destined for in & around the National Mall, particularly tourist traffic, which makes up quite a bit of the overall vehicle volume in the city.  And despite the occasional rumblings about tunneling an I-66 extension under K Street (which don't go anywhere and are just talk), the prospect of system expansion functionally died about 45 years ago.  On the other hand -- except for the Whitehurst -- any clamoring for teardowns doesn't seem to have gained steam either; for the most part, the status quo seems to be working at least satisfactorily.       
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 20, 2017, 06:31:46 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA
None of those freeways really cut through the heart of the city. They take you to the edge of the CBD but you have to go the rest of your way on local roads. The closest you can argue is the Center Leg Freeway portion of 395 which ends at NY Avenue, but most commuters don't go that far north on 395 anyway.

I-395 goes deep enough into central DC to be pretty significant. The East-West portion of I-395 seven blocks past the Potomac River goes right next to a lot of important buildings. The North-South leg after the I-695 interchange tunnels under the Capitol Reflecting Pool. Its terminus at New York Ave is past most of the important stuff. The combination of I-695, I-295, VA-295 and US-50 actually gives I-395 a type of thru freeway route back out to the Capitol Beltway.

There's a lot more development of office towers and other businesses in Alexandria and Arlington where the highway access is better. It has been over 30 years since I lived in the DC area, but even then places like Tyson's Corner, Springfield, Crystal City and other zones were blossoming with towers because it was relatively easier to get in and out of those place by car.

Quote from: sparker
Sometimes I wonder if the folks proposing freeway teardowns or various traffic inhibitors bother to ask the businesses and merchants in the affected area their assessment of the effects of such actions. Only some central city businesses can exist solely through sales to local residents (maybe a Starbucks or three); most need as many customers as they can get to walk through their doors regardless of point of origin. They've got enough trouble competing with online sources and vendors; functionally depriving them of sales because folks not living close are actively or passively discouraged from downtown patronization isn't likely conducive to the continued economic vitality of the neighborhood.

Restaurants, retailers and other service sector businesses in downtown areas have more problems to worry about than just customers finding it too difficult to visit their businesses. They're going to have staffing issues to worry about too. And that's going to be a problem regardless of whether urban freeways are dismantled or not.

Cities like San Francisco, New York City and quite a few others are pricing middle and lower class workers clear out of the neighborhoods. Housing costs and other living costs are getting so ridiculously high that it threatens to push many of these people clear of the region. New York City is a really serious homeless problem right now. Many of these homeless people are people working full time jobs, sometimes even 2 or more jobs. Yet they still can't find any place to live, but unfortunately don't have enough money to escape the city either. It's a hell of a catch 22 situation. But when they are able to get out of town they're going to leave.

The new urbanists aren't saying much about the darker, douchebag side of their Utopian vision. I guess their thinking is they'll turn the city center into their own exclusive country club. Still, when the cost of living is too freaking high and the commute is too much of a pain in the ass, who are they going to get to wash their dishes and serve their food for shit pay? Who are they going to get to man the cash registers? There's lots of shit paying jobs out in the suburbs and lots more in far lower cost of living parts of the nation.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: sparker on December 20, 2017, 06:48:32 PM
The new urbanists aren't saying much about the darker, douchebag side of their Utopian vision. I guess their thinking is they'll turn the city center into their own exclusive country club. Still, when the cost of living is too freaking high and the commute is too much of a pain in the ass, who are they going to get to wash their dishes and serve their food for shit pay? Who are they going to get to man the cash registers? There's lots of shit paying jobs out in the suburbs and lots more in far lower cost of living parts of the nation.

Unless there's sufficient funds to deploy reasonably attractive public housing (that doesn't look or seem like a prison block!) in these urban areas, any attempt to clear out land by removing freeways, altering the business climate, "boulevardization", etc. will inevitably draw development adhering to a modus operandi aimed at maximizing profit -- i.e., gentrification!  And that will exacerbate the existing problem of functionally overpriced in-city housing affordable by only the "1%".  Urbanists really should examine the concept of unintended consequences a little more closely before proposing conceptualizations that more often than not will result in exclusionary results.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 20, 2017, 07:27:17 PM
If you remove the I-395, I-695, I-66, I-295/DC-295 and US-50 freeways from inside the Capitol Beltway it would seem like the end of the world to commuters all over the Greater DC area. That especially goes for I-395.

None of those freeways really cut through the heart of the city. They take you to the edge of the CBD but you have to go the rest of your way on local roads. The closest you can argue is the Center Leg Freeway portion of 395 which ends at NY Avenue, but most commuters don't go that far north on 395 anyway.

While none of those freeways serve the D.C. CBD per se, what they do particularly well is distribute traffic destined for in & around the National Mall, particularly tourist traffic, which makes up quite a bit of the overall vehicle volume in the city.  And despite the occasional rumblings about tunneling an I-66 extension under K Street (which don't go anywhere and are just talk), the prospect of system expansion functionally died about 45 years ago.  On the other hand -- except for the Whitehurst -- any clamoring for teardowns doesn't seem to have gained steam either; for the most part, the status quo seems to be working at least satisfactorily.       

 :-D Maybe like on the 4th of July, but are you serious?

Besides, you just made my point. Freeways don't need to cut through the city center to be effective...they just have you get you close by and onto a sensible portion of the local grid. Many large cities in Europe (e.g. Paris, Moscow) have multiple train stations around the core of the city since they couldn't run tracks through the middle of the city...same concept.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 20, 2017, 07:29:39 PM
It has been over 30 years since I lived in the DC area, but even then places like Tyson's Corner, Springfield, Crystal City and other zones were blossoming with towers because it was relatively easier to get in and out of those place by car.

You do know that they built a Metro line out to Tysons because it wasn't surviving as a car-only suburb, right? Furthermore, Crystal City is a second-tier office market compared to areas in the city and even Rosslyn. You don't seem to know much about the modern DC , and your information seems based on outdated experiences.

As to the rest of your manifesto, all I can say is that I'm glad that I live on the coast and not the heartland, if that's a typical view on things.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: sparker on December 20, 2017, 09:49:15 PM
If you remove the I-395, I-695, I-66, I-295/DC-295 and US-50 freeways from inside the Capitol Beltway it would seem like the end of the world to commuters all over the Greater DC area. That especially goes for I-395.

None of those freeways really cut through the heart of the city. They take you to the edge of the CBD but you have to go the rest of your way on local roads. The closest you can argue is the Center Leg Freeway portion of 395 which ends at NY Avenue, but most commuters don't go that far north on 395 anyway.

While none of those freeways serve the D.C. CBD per se, what they do particularly well is distribute traffic destined for in & around the National Mall, particularly tourist traffic, which makes up quite a bit of the overall vehicle volume in the city.  And despite the occasional rumblings about tunneling an I-66 extension under K Street (which don't go anywhere and are just talk), the prospect of system expansion functionally died about 45 years ago.  On the other hand -- except for the Whitehurst -- any clamoring for teardowns doesn't seem to have gained steam either; for the most part, the status quo seems to be working at least satisfactorily.       

 :-D Maybe like on the 4th of July, but are you serious?

Besides, you just made my point. Freeways don't need to cut through the city center to be effective...they just have you get you close by and onto a sensible portion of the local grid. Many large cities in Europe (e.g. Paris, Moscow) have multiple train stations around the core of the city since they couldn't run tracks through the middle of the city...same concept.

Most of the times I've been to D.C. (and never on 7/4!) for research interviews and archival research, I've encountered large numbers of tourists (it's always fun to converse with them to ascertain their feelings about being in "ground zero" of institutional power & prerogative).  The times I've asked, more are getting around the area by car (often short-term rentals) that availing themselves of transit (if they knew/understood the network better, that figure may decrease -- but "short-termers" usually don't bother to scope out transit unless they're doing a carless visit.

And in the case of D.C., through-put freeways wouldn't be much help in getting around the city; that point is correct -- in that particular instance!]  The traffic patterns that exist with the truncated network that there is in D.C. are long settled; the fact that while agencies and institutions are spread around the city; it's compact enough (by design!) so that transit and walking are a viable option; the distance between any two points is only a few miles.  And D.C., for the most part, emanates radially from a series of hubs at or flanking the mall area. 

But that doesn't indicate that the model that works for D.C. is in any way portable; the city configuration is completely different from a variegated environment such as posed by Dallas and most other cities.  Existing freeways are, in most of these cities, part of the regional economic structure, utilized for commerce and access by residents of the region at large; the city just happens to be where much of the "action" occurs, thus it's a common destination from within and out of the greater area. 

One additional thing to consider -- not all trips into and out of city centers are carefully planned and carried out; a lot of commercial and social activity occurs because one is near a particular location and realizes that there's something that "needs doing" along the way -- but only if it's moderately convenient to do so.  "Slicing and dicing" freeways and thus forcing traffic onto surface streets turns that equation of convenience on its head; it becomes a bothersome "forced march" through areas previously not traversed, adding the time needed to get from point A to point B to the time allotted to conduct one's business -- where previously it was a matter of exiting the freeway, "taking care of business" and popping back onto one's way. 

But what I don't understand is the "zero-sum" approach to urban freeways displayed by those with an urbanist bent -- and the I-345/Dallas scenario is a prime example of this train of thought.  Solutions have been proposed to get rid of the eyesore that is the elevated freeway by sinking it below grade, with the surface being a commons-type facility geared toward providing an uninterrupted city experience.  But some folks aren't satisfied to get what they want -- they have to also see that those not subscribing to their particular viewpoint lose something in the process.  The driving public seems to be viewed as a pariah -- or worse -- by such activists, not worthy of any consideration except banishment to the perimeter.  The prevailing sentiment here seems to be the age-old "if you're not with us you're against us!" credo (one which I personally find not only functionally inoperative/worthless but patently stupid).  Except as an indicator of the type of argument to be avoided at all costs, this sort of partisan discourse has no place in practical policy discussions.  Just because a human being lives in an outlying area -- and wants to occasionally avail one's self of urban amenities -- doesn't make them any less worthy than a city-center apartment dweller.  It's called tribalism, folks -- and is simply an unnecessary distraction from the process of arriving at policies and solutions that benefit the greater number rather than simply the most vocal and adamant!
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 20, 2017, 11:29:48 PM
Because development responds to incentives, including transportation capabilities. If we had subsidized public transportation instead of urban interstates in the '50s, American cities would look much, much different.

The suburbs have dictated development policy for the past 70 years. Is it such a terrible thing that people are resisting this in numbers these days, particularly when they are the most locally affected?
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 20, 2017, 11:45:35 PM
Instead the government did the right thing and invested in the future, the private automobile.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on December 21, 2017, 04:06:23 AM
You don't want the highway because it is near YOU. That is NIMBYism at its worst. You're saying fuck the commuters in Plano because I don't want to look at that freeway. Why are your aesthetic preference more important than the needs of motorists from Plano (or anywhere for that matter) who need to drive through the city without having to detour 35 miles out of the way onto a freeway that is already a parking lot? Why are you more important than them? You're usually very rational but you've gone off the deep end on this issue.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: sparker on December 21, 2017, 04:46:47 AM
Because development responds to incentives, including transportation capabilities. If we had subsidized public transportation instead of urban interstates in the '50s, American cities would look much, much different.

The suburbs have dictated development policy for the past 70 years. Is it such a terrible thing that people are resisting this in numbers these days, particularly when they are the most locally affected?

For better or worse, the policy streams in this country have vested authority and responsibility with the individual rather than the collective; this was a deliberate choice back when the Constitution was being assembled.  The singular democratic methodology that might have yielded a pathway for collective rights -- a default parliamentary form of government rather than a distribution of powers among various entities -- was summarily dismissed by Madison, Jefferson, Franklin et. al. as a flawed format that would inject partisanship into even the minutiae of governance.  The "founding fathers" eschewed ideology in favor of a system that would promote effectual governance.  Obviously, the system has its issues in that it doesn't respond to populism or reactionism exceptionally well -- although we might elect folks with those tendencies, their power remains checked. 

What all that means in terms of policy is that the default regarding rights and prerogatives remains geared to the individual rather than the collective.  A policy favoring the funding of a collective form of transportation rather than enhancing the ability of citizens to select their own efficiencies would have never seen the light of day prior to the fuel crisis of 1979-80.  Public transit was seen as something that was grudgingly necessary in denser areas; a less desirable and less flexible means of getting around -- which would be promptly discarded, one person at a time, when the means to acquire and operate a private vehicle were available.  Car ownership increased commerce possibilities, postwar upward mobility dictated that more flexible and spacious living arrangements be ready and available -- and the cycle continued from there.  It was never that the suburbs "dictated policy"; the default policy, as always, was to maximize the potential for individual choice -- and the choice to acquire the maximally accommodating suburban dwelling was the more popular option.  The growth and dominance of the suburbs was not a collective choice but rather an aggregate one; despite some populist notions to the contrary, there was never a sinister "master plan" to expand metro areas outward, but simply the sum total of individual instinct as well as economic reality:  until fuel prices skyrocketed in the late '70's, it was considerably cheaper to live in a relatively spacious suburban dwelling than in a comparatively small city apartment (or, later, condo).  But even after commute costs rose throughout the rest of the 20th century, other economic factors (constantly rising urban housing costs prominent among those) intervened to maintain the status of the suburb as comparatively affordable.  There was never any chance that measures to curtail the trend toward suburban preferences would ever be instituted; that trend was viewed as a logical economic progression.  The concept of "urbanism" didn't emerge until much later, largely as an outgrowth of collective trends within academia.  Public transportation was -- and to a certain degree still is -- seen as necessary but partial compensation for the vagaries of capitalism -- but never as an elective choice. 

Nonetheless, it is an unfortunate -- not "terrible" but merely misguided -- thing that in some quarters a knee-jerk blanket position condemning all things automotive has been adopted -- as if depriving the driving public of the means to efficiently function will result in a mass epidemic of self-loathing among that group resulting in a large-scale abandonment of that transportation mode.  ]i]Ain't gonna happen, people![/i]  One may adopt any position one wants -- but nothing will rewrite history.           
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: austrini on December 21, 2017, 07:35:41 AM
You don't want the highway because it is near YOU. That is NIMBYism at its worst. You're saying fuck the commuters in Plano because I don't want to look at that freeway. Why are your aesthetic preference more important than the needs of motorists from Plano (or anywhere for that matter) who need to drive through the city without having to detour 35 miles out of the way onto a freeway that is already a parking lot? Why are you more important than them? You're usually very rational but you've gone off the deep end on this issue.

Thanks Jeremy, thats nice of you to say. You know I've always lived by freeways and never had an issue. I wanted this one gone when I was in college in 2001, 5 states away. There aren't any commuters that actually use the thing. Read the TxDot report. No one is commuting from Plano to the landfill. I'm saying fuck the people in Plano who go to Houston once a year, they can go around. It's useful to get to downtown, not through it.

In the 60s Vincent Ponte (I think he was from Montreal) was hired to write a report about planning downtown and this was part of the plan. The goal was to have ramps directly into big giant parking garages ringing the downtown area. Lots of blocks were bulldozed for them, but they were never built. It was never in the first freeway plans

(https://i.imgur.com/Xi3kmBA.gif)

and was added later on the prediction that a bunch of people would go live in the river bottom for some reason https://i.imgur.com/mRMyTdt.jpg - which never happened.

I have no idea why they eventually built the thing. It's never really been useful.

(https://i.imgur.com/YuUp5ek.jpg)

Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 21, 2017, 08:01:44 AM
150,000 people a day disagree it isnít useful. Iím sure youíre response will be they can find another freeway with another 100,000 plus people that find that freeway useful. Fortunately, I am confident TxDOT will do the right thing and keep this freeway in place but rebuild it to better suite the community.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 21, 2017, 08:02:41 AM
You don't want the highway because it is near YOU. That is NIMBYism at its worst. You're saying fuck the commuters in Plano because I don't want to look at that freeway. Why are your aesthetic preference more important than the needs of motorists from Plano (or anywhere for that matter) who need to drive through the city without having to detour 35 miles out of the way onto a freeway that is already a parking lot? Why are you more important than them? You're usually very rational but you've gone off the deep end on this issue.
This is what I wanted to say but couldnít put it in words minus my knowledge of this poster as I am fairly new to this site.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: austrini on December 21, 2017, 08:19:08 AM
150,000 people a day disagree it isnít useful. Iím sure youíre response will be they can find another freeway with another 100,000 plus people that find that freeway useful. Fortunately, I am confident TxDOT will do the right thing and keep this freeway in place but rebuild it to better suite the community.

As has been said repeatedly in this thread and the TxDot report 89% of the people you reference who are using 345 only use it to enter downtown, not go through it.

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2014/05/poll-what-should-dallas-do-about-interstate-345/

In 2014 it was 70% hated, now i'd gather it's 90% hated.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 21, 2017, 08:30:56 AM
90% of who hate it? I donít. Anecdotally, I canít think of one person I know that lives in Dallas who hates it. Whether the use it for through traffic or not is besides the point, itís used by over 150,000 people. Thatís a lot of people who like this highway and use it for one reason or another.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 21, 2017, 08:33:36 AM
Okay, that was some poll by a news agency. Iím not familiar with their targeted readers, but Iím betting theyíre more liberal and geared towards inner city living. Itíd just be a shocker if LA Times came out with a poll that showed a lot of its readers opposed the 710 freeway expansion. I just couldnít believe it.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: austrini on December 21, 2017, 08:55:43 AM
90% of who hate it? I donít. Anecdotally, I canít think of one person I know that lives in Dallas who hates it. Whether the use it for through traffic or not is besides the point, itís used by over 150,000 people. Thatís a lot of people who like this highway and use it for one reason or another.

*rubs forehead*  using it for through traffic or not is precisely the point - dumping all incoming traffic into downtown - the destination of 89% (according to TxDot). That's why it's in the TxDot study as an option, because it makes sense.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 21, 2017, 09:27:53 AM
You know, if a roadfan who lives there is saying that tearing it down might have some benefits, perhaps taking the "pave absolutely everything, everywhere, and never give an inch" approach isn't the wisest one.

If the issue is getting I-45 to Tulsa (as it seems to be for a few of y'all), just route it on LBJ East. Bonus - it will make sense to renumber and extend 75 through South Dallas, reconnecting it to 175 once again.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: kphoger on December 21, 2017, 02:57:50 PM
The vast majority of traffic on I-345 would likely originate within a 20-30 mile radius of Downtown Dallas, even though it may not necessarily have a destination in Downtown (at I-35E, 80% of traffic just passes through). There's no need to caricaturize it as a freeway solely for people from Houston to Oklahoma, that would be only a tiny fraction of those 177,000 vehicles per day.

While the cost of putting it below grade would likely be high, the cost of upgrading tens of miles of existing freeways and reconstructing many interchanges would be much greater.

This is a situation where local, on-the-ground information contradicts what might be logical from how the system is laid out. From personal experience and that of others I know, everything austrini is saying is completely correct - you're simply not getting onto I-45 from North Dallas and Collin County  unless you're headed to Ennis or south. There is no significant local traffic in that corridor, and this is part of why it was so late to be built.

The cost of upgrading the existing freeways and interchanges may be greater, but they would also have much stronger network effects than sinking billions into 345.

Are you intending to say that most of the 177,000 vehicles travelling through there every day are long-distance traffic and have no actual business in Dallas?  Call me a skeptic, but I'm skeptical.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 21, 2017, 03:21:57 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA
You do know that they built a Metro line out to Tysons because it wasn't surviving as a car-only suburb, right? Furthermore, Crystal City is a second-tier office market compared to areas in the city and even Rosslyn. You don't seem to know much about the modern DC , and your information seems based on outdated experiences.

I've been in the DC area on a number of occasions over the years; some friends from high school still live in the area.

The Metro line to Tyson's corner was there back in the 1980's. Since then some massive expansion to highways has taken place. It hasn't all been about commuter rail. I-95 in Springfield approaching the beltway is gigantic compared to how it was 30 years ago. The HOV lanes for I-395 ended there. Now the HOV lanes goes down past the Marine Corps base in Quantico. The old Woodrow Wilson bridge/traffic jam creator was replaced with new twin bridges more than double in size & traffic capacity. I don't see freeways getting ripped out and replaced with bike paths in the DC area.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA
As to the rest of your manifesto, all I can say is that I'm glad that I live on the coast and not the heartland, if that's a typical view on things.

I don't know what you're reffering to as a "manifesto." If it has to do with my comments about low and middle income workers being financially squeezed by rising living costs in New Urbanist-theme city centers that's not a manifesto at all. It's dollars and cents simple math. Starve or leave town. Or maybe pile into a cramped apartment with 2 or more roomates or couch surf at various places. That might be tolerable as a temporary arrangement. The situation isn't practical for getting married and starting a family -an activity that drives much of our nation's economy.

Quote from: sparker
And in the case of D.C., through-put freeways wouldn't be much help in getting around the city; that point is correct -- in that particular instance!]  The traffic patterns that exist with the truncated network that there is in D.C. are long settled; the fact that while agencies and institutions are spread around the city; it's compact enough (by design!) so that transit and walking are a viable option; the distance between any two points is only a few miles.  And D.C., for the most part, emanates radially from a series of hubs at or flanking the mall area.

DC began de-centralizing many years ago. It's no longer necessary to build a highway through DC to the other side of the beltway because even more people in the DC area work outside of the DC city limits.

Quote from: TXtoNJ
The suburbs have dictated development policy for the past 70 years. Is it such a terrible thing that people are resisting this in numbers these days, particularly when they are the most locally affected?

That's politics for you. Government policy goes where the white folks live. Many of them retreated to the suburbs decades ago. The New Urbanist movement campaigns for everyone to move back to the city center and fight sprawl, traffic, pollution, etc. They preach sustainability, but the problem is there's no reality check going on with the economics of their ideal. If it costs too much to move to the urban center then suburbanites are going to stay put in the suburbs and keep using personal vehicles for most of their transportation needs.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 21, 2017, 04:50:57 PM
The vast majority of traffic on I-345 would likely originate within a 20-30 mile radius of Downtown Dallas, even though it may not necessarily have a destination in Downtown (at I-35E, 80% of traffic just passes through). There's no need to caricaturize it as a freeway solely for people from Houston to Oklahoma, that would be only a tiny fraction of those 177,000 vehicles per day.

While the cost of putting it below grade would likely be high, the cost of upgrading tens of miles of existing freeways and reconstructing many interchanges would be much greater.

This is a situation where local, on-the-ground information contradicts what might be logical from how the system is laid out. From personal experience and that of others I know, everything austrini is saying is completely correct - you're simply not getting onto I-45 from North Dallas and Collin County  unless you're headed to Ennis or south. There is no significant local traffic in that corridor, and this is part of why it was so late to be built.

The cost of upgrading the existing freeways and interchanges may be greater, but they would also have much stronger network effects than sinking billions into 345.

Are you intending to say that most of the 177,000 vehicles travelling through there every day are long-distance traffic and have no actual business in Dallas?  Call me a skeptic, but I'm skeptical.

No. Most are headed downtown or in the immediate area, as indicated by the data that austrini has cited several times. This traffic can be handled either by surface streets, or a combination of Thornton, Stemmons and Rodgers. That's in contrast to the movement best served by 345 - Central to I-45, which is a small fraction of the traffic using the route.

Quote
That's politics for you. Government policy goes where the white folks live. Many of them retreated to the suburbs decades ago. The New Urbanist movement campaigns for everyone to move back to the city center and fight sprawl, traffic, pollution, etc. They preach sustainability, but the problem is there's no reality check going on with the economics of their ideal. If it costs too much to move to the urban center then suburbanites are going to stay put in the suburbs and keep using personal vehicles for most of their transportation needs.

There's no economics here beyond political will. If the suburbanites want to stay in their cars, they can stay in the suburbs. It's not as if they've spent the last 40 years building up Dallas, even as transportation policy served their needs - instead, we got the Metroplex sprawl.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 21, 2017, 05:21:26 PM
Quote
There's no economics here beyond political will. If the suburbanites want to stay in their cars, they can stay in the suburbs. It's not as if they've spent the last 40 years building up Dallas, even as transportation policy served their needs - instead, we got the Metroplex sprawl.

Affordability is the critical thing, not want or politics. You'll get a hell of a lot more living space for your money in the suburbs. Get a good sized house in the suburbs for the price of a closet sized apartment downtown. Maybe be able to have that house all to yourself versus having to share the downtown apartment with other roommates. The New Urbanists act as if this giant cost difference doesn't exist -that suburban residents (even those living in apartment developments) are being dicks for not moving downtown.

Developments lately have been increasing that cost difference by a wide margin. Various speculators (including foreign investors and hedge funds) have been buying up all kinds of urban center properties and running up the housing prices like mad. The problem is at its worst in places like New York City.

Yes, sprawl has affected many big American cities for the past 40 years. During the past 25 years employers have been leaving behind downtown skyscrapers for suburban office parks to be closer to their employees. The massive growth North of Dallas is undeniable evidence of that.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 21, 2017, 05:28:54 PM
Quote
There's no economics here beyond political will. If the suburbanites want to stay in their cars, they can stay in the suburbs. It's not as if they've spent the last 40 years building up Dallas, even as transportation policy served their needs - instead, we got the Metroplex sprawl.

Affordability is the critical thing, not want or politics. You'll get a hell of a lot more living space for your money in the suburbs. Get a good sized house in the suburbs for the price of a closet sized apartment downtown. Maybe be able to have that house all to yourself versus having to share the downtown apartment with other roommates. The New Urbanists act as if this giant cost difference doesn't exist -that suburban residents (even those living in apartment developments) are being dicks for not moving downtown.

Developments lately have been increasing that cost difference by a wide margin. Various speculators (including foreign investors and hedge funds) have been buying up all kinds of urban center properties and running up the housing prices like mad. The problem is at its worst in places like New York City.

Yes, sprawl has affected many big American cities for the past 40 years. During the past 25 years employers have been leaving behind downtown skyscrapers for suburban office parks to be closer to their employees. The massive growth North of Dallas is undeniable evidence of that.

Great. Live in the suburbs. Just don't expect the center cities to reconfigure themselves for your benefit just as they've done in the past - especially since doing so didn't bring the economic benefits promised.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: sparker on December 21, 2017, 06:45:48 PM
Look -- this discussion has either deteriorated (or polarized, depending upon your standpoint) into an urbanist/all other POV impasse, with posters staking out their territory.  The urban position seems to be largely one of reparation, with their position being that only complete removal of the offending facilities and effective banishment of through traffic to the perimeter will satisfy their requirements.  Funny thing -- since most posters in that grouping weren't even born when the I-345 structure was built, their reaction is plainly sociopolitical in nature rather than experiential; they've been inculcated into their belief pattern -- which seems to have eliminated any empathy for the residents of the metro area as a whole.  Instead, it's become a quasi-religious crusade -- a merry (although many attitudes belie this characterization!) band of urban communitarians versus the cruel world typified by things existing outside the city core; a classic "us vs. them" scenario.  These often end with one side being severely disappointed if not disillusioned -- and, although this may not come as a surprise to anyone who has toiled in the policy field -- that often is the side with more in the way of ideals than economic clout.  The "teardown" folks often tend to offer a single "all or nothing" solution without a series of fallback options -- when they fail, they tend to fail big

I certainly can't fault them for wanting a decidedly "fugly" facility to be gone (and I-345 definitely fits into that category!) -- but eliminating the function of that route and expecting through traffic to use a perimeter facility (and I-635 operates at or near its capacity much of the time) would, in terms of regional politics, be the proverbial "bridge too far" (no pun intended!).  Replacement of the I-345 structure with something that doesn't pose the same visual or cross-connectivity issues (such as a trenched & capped freeway) actually solves the practical problems if not the ideological ones -- it's a "limited" victory for urban dwellers/activists; not necessarily a pyrrhic one!  And in the policy arena of the 21st century, a limited victory is better than none at all!

I've got to interject something else here -- if I-45/US 75 traffic were to be shunted over to I-635 -- in addition to the extant volumes -- the capacity of that facility would need to be increase at least proportionally -- likely a couple of GP through lanes; that would impinge upon residents of Mesquite, Garland, and Richardson, as the entire facility including frontage roads would have to expand into the adjoining areas.  And the folks affected by such activity are citizens with equal standing to those in central Dallas.  Empathy is a two-way street; electing to "stick it" to suburban residents simply because one feels that history has dealt the urban dweller a series of bad hands indicates a lack of it -- or tacit approval of a "two-tiered" system that values some people more than others just for geographical reasons -- garden-variety prejudice. 

To paraphrase the late, great Firesign Theater:  We're not only proud of our city core, we're downright smug about it!.         
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: texaskdog on December 22, 2017, 11:39:56 AM
Quote
There's no economics here beyond political will. If the suburbanites want to stay in their cars, they can stay in the suburbs. It's not as if they've spent the last 40 years building up Dallas, even as transportation policy served their needs - instead, we got the Metroplex sprawl.

Affordability is the critical thing, not want or politics. You'll get a hell of a lot more living space for your money in the suburbs. Get a good sized house in the suburbs for the price of a closet sized apartment downtown. Maybe be able to have that house all to yourself versus having to share the downtown apartment with other roommates. The New Urbanists act as if this giant cost difference doesn't exist -that suburban residents (even those living in apartment developments) are being dicks for not moving downtown.

Developments lately have been increasing that cost difference by a wide margin. Various speculators (including foreign investors and hedge funds) have been buying up all kinds of urban center properties and running up the housing prices like mad. The problem is at its worst in places like New York City.

Yes, sprawl has affected many big American cities for the past 40 years. During the past 25 years employers have been leaving behind downtown skyscrapers for suburban office parks to be closer to their employees. The massive growth North of Dallas is undeniable evidence of that.

You say sprawl like it is a bad thing.  It makes sense to spread traffic around and not have everyone go downtown.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 22, 2017, 01:29:40 PM
I'm not really saying sprawl is a bad thing. For decades it has long been the response to city cores raising living costs too damned high. People move farther away from downtown to find housing they can afford. Employers have been following suit in recent decades, leaving behind sky high lease prices in downtown offices towers for suburban campus sites. I still remember when JCPenney left behind its HQ in Manhattan for a new HQ on Legacy Drive well North of Dallas.

In some cases, like Detroit, much of the city was abandoned via "white flight." Detroit is now coming back, but housing speculators are coming along to ruin the resurgence.

New Urbanists can preach all they want about sustainability and how everyone needs to move back to the city core and leave behind suburbia. Unfortunately the New Urbanists are either unaware or deliberately ignorant of the rampant housing speculation and price war that has been taking place. They look down their noses at people living out in the suburbs as if they're committing some kind of crime, not realizing the fact it's just too damned expensive to get a living space in these downtown areas. If you're a single person you might be able to swing it if you're willing to share the space with roommates. If you're someone with a wife and kids and require at least 2 or 3 bedrooms in your living space you pretty much need to be in the top 10% (or even top 1%) income group to afford a family sized space. There's zero acknowledgement of this from the New Urbanist crowd. They pretend issues of income inequality and housing affordability do not exist.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 22, 2017, 01:45:19 PM
Look -- this discussion has either deteriorated (or polarized, depending upon your standpoint) into an urbanist/all other POV impasse, with posters staking out their territory.  The urban position seems to be largely one of reparation, with their position being that only complete removal of the offending facilities and effective banishment of through traffic to the perimeter will satisfy their requirements.  Funny thing -- since most posters in that grouping weren't even born when the I-345 structure was built, their reaction is plainly sociopolitical in nature rather than experiential; they've been inculcated into their belief pattern -- which seems to have eliminated any empathy for the residents of the metro area as a whole.  Instead, it's become a quasi-religious crusade -- a merry (although many attitudes belie this characterization!) band of urban communitarians versus the cruel world typified by things existing outside the city core; a classic "us vs. them" scenario.  These often end with one side being severely disappointed if not disillusioned -- and, although this may not come as a surprise to anyone who has toiled in the policy field -- that often is the side with more in the way of ideals than economic clout.  The "teardown" folks often tend to offer a single "all or nothing" solution without a series of fallback options -- when they fail, they tend to fail big

I certainly can't fault them for wanting a decidedly "fugly" facility to be gone (and I-345 definitely fits into that category!) -- but eliminating the function of that route and expecting through traffic to use a perimeter facility (and I-635 operates at or near its capacity much of the time) would, in terms of regional politics, be the proverbial "bridge too far" (no pun intended!).  Replacement of the I-345 structure with something that doesn't pose the same visual or cross-connectivity issues (such as a trenched & capped freeway) actually solves the practical problems if not the ideological ones -- it's a "limited" victory for urban dwellers/activists; not necessarily a pyrrhic one!  And in the policy arena of the 21st century, a limited victory is better than none at all!

I've got to interject something else here -- if I-45/US 75 traffic were to be shunted over to I-635 -- in addition to the extant volumes -- the capacity of that facility would need to be increase at least proportionally -- likely a couple of GP through lanes; that would impinge upon residents of Mesquite, Garland, and Richardson, as the entire facility including frontage roads would have to expand into the adjoining areas.  And the folks affected by such activity are citizens with equal standing to those in central Dallas.  Empathy is a two-way street; electing to "stick it" to suburban residents simply because one feels that history has dealt the urban dweller a series of bad hands indicates a lack of it -- or tacit approval of a "two-tiered" system that values some people more than others just for geographical reasons -- garden-variety prejudice. 

To paraphrase the late, great Firesign Theater:  We're not only proud of our city core, we're downright smug about it!.         

What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: kphoger on December 22, 2017, 02:53:20 PM
What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

When it's a city street, great.  But we're talking about a piece of the Interstate highway system here.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 22, 2017, 03:06:50 PM
What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

When it's a city street, great.  But we're talking about a piece of the Interstate highway system here.

Why does that make a difference, in the presence of generally sufficient alternatives? People are acting as if this hasn't been given any thought whatsoever by its proponents.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: kphoger on December 22, 2017, 03:18:55 PM
What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

When it's a city street, great.  But we're talking about a piece of the Interstate highway system here.

Why does that make a difference, in the presence of generally sufficient alternatives? People are acting as if this hasn't been given any thought whatsoever by its proponents.

It should make a difference because Interstates are intended to be a nationwide network of superhighways built to a certain standard.  As such, it should be up to more than just the local community to take a chunk of that network out.  There being a "sufficient alternative" or not should be determined by more than just the local community. 
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 22, 2017, 03:26:16 PM
What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

When it's a city street, great.  But we're talking about a piece of the Interstate highway system here.

Why does that make a difference, in the presence of generally sufficient alternatives? People are acting as if this hasn't been given any thought whatsoever by its proponents.

It should make a difference because Interstates are intended to be a nationwide network of superhighways built to a certain standard.  As such, it should be up to more than just the local community to take a chunk of that network out.  There being a "sufficient alternative" or not should be determined by more than just the local community. 

This is not a mainline Interstate being discussed - it's a spur that serves relatively little purpose not sufficiently served by alternatives, as repeatedly mentioned. Other than a desire for some sort of Platonic network perfection, what interest do outsiders have in the functioning of this bit of roadway?
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: kphoger on December 22, 2017, 03:55:42 PM
What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

When it's a city street, great.  But we're talking about a piece of the Interstate highway system here.

Why does that make a difference, in the presence of generally sufficient alternatives? People are acting as if this hasn't been given any thought whatsoever by its proponents.

It should make a difference because Interstates are intended to be a nationwide network of superhighways built to a certain standard.  As such, it should be up to more than just the local community to take a chunk of that network out.  There being a "sufficient alternative" or not should be determined by more than just the local community. 

This is not a mainline Interstate being discussed - it's a spur that serves relatively little purpose not sufficiently served by alternatives, as repeatedly mentioned. Other than a desire for some sort of Platonic network perfection, what interest do outsiders have in the functioning of this bit of roadway?

But that's perhaps a discussion as to whether I-345 should have been designated in the first place or not.  Maybe outsiders have an interest in the functioning of this bit of roadway, maybe they don't.  But that's not just for the local community to decide; outsiders are, after all, not part of that local community.  If Interstates are intended to serve the needs of outsiders, and outsiders are found to need I-345, then the local community shouldn't get to just rip it out anyway.  If, OTOH, it's found that outsiders don't need I-345, then the decision should be considered by all (including outsiders) to remove it.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: NE2 on December 22, 2017, 04:01:19 PM
Fuck suburbia.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: kphoger on December 22, 2017, 04:09:57 PM
Fuck suburbia.

so....  for or against?
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 22, 2017, 04:25:31 PM
What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

When it's a city street, great.  But we're talking about a piece of the Interstate highway system here.

Why does that make a difference, in the presence of generally sufficient alternatives? People are acting as if this hasn't been given any thought whatsoever by its proponents.

It should make a difference because Interstates are intended to be a nationwide network of superhighways built to a certain standard.  As such, it should be up to more than just the local community to take a chunk of that network out.  There being a "sufficient alternative" or not should be determined by more than just the local community. 

This is not a mainline Interstate being discussed - it's a spur that serves relatively little purpose not sufficiently served by alternatives, as repeatedly mentioned. Other than a desire for some sort of Platonic network perfection, what interest do outsiders have in the functioning of this bit of roadway?

But that's perhaps a discussion as to whether I-345 should have been designated in the first place or not.  Maybe outsiders have an interest in the functioning of this bit of roadway, maybe they don't.  But that's not just for the local community to decide; outsiders are, after all, not part of that local community.  If Interstates are intended to serve the needs of outsiders, and outsiders are found to need I-345, then the local community shouldn't get to just rip it out anyway.  If, OTOH, it's found that outsiders don't need I-345, then the decision should be considered by all (including outsiders) to remove it.

That's what the report is about. Read through it - it's fairly compelling information.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: kphoger on December 22, 2017, 04:28:58 PM
What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

When it's a city street, great.  But we're talking about a piece of the Interstate highway system here.

Why does that make a difference, in the presence of generally sufficient alternatives? People are acting as if this hasn't been given any thought whatsoever by its proponents.

It should make a difference because Interstates are intended to be a nationwide network of superhighways built to a certain standard.  As such, it should be up to more than just the local community to take a chunk of that network out.  There being a "sufficient alternative" or not should be determined by more than just the local community. 

This is not a mainline Interstate being discussed - it's a spur that serves relatively little purpose not sufficiently served by alternatives, as repeatedly mentioned. Other than a desire for some sort of Platonic network perfection, what interest do outsiders have in the functioning of this bit of roadway?

But that's perhaps a discussion as to whether I-345 should have been designated in the first place or not.  Maybe outsiders have an interest in the functioning of this bit of roadway, maybe they don't.  But that's not just for the local community to decide; outsiders are, after all, not part of that local community.  If Interstates are intended to serve the needs of outsiders, and outsiders are found to need I-345, then the local community shouldn't get to just rip it out anyway.  If, OTOH, it's found that outsiders don't need I-345, then the decision should be considered by all (including outsiders) to remove it.

That's what the report is about. Read through it - it's fairly compelling information.

My statements were in response to your question, "What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity".  I'm fine with decisions being made to eliminate a portion of Interstate highway that is little needed, but not if that decision is being made by an over-representation of the local community.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: sparker on December 22, 2017, 04:44:01 PM
What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

When it's a city street, great.  But we're talking about a piece of the Interstate highway system here.

Why does that make a difference, in the presence of generally sufficient alternatives? People are acting as if this hasn't been given any thought whatsoever by its proponents.

It should make a difference because Interstates are intended to be a nationwide network of superhighways built to a certain standard.  As such, it should be up to more than just the local community to take a chunk of that network out.  There being a "sufficient alternative" or not should be determined by more than just the local community. 

This is not a mainline Interstate being discussed - it's a spur that serves relatively little purpose not sufficiently served by alternatives, as repeatedly mentioned. Other than a desire for some sort of Platonic network perfection, what interest do outsiders have in the functioning of this bit of roadway?

OK -- except for the purpose of flexing urban muscle, what is the rationale behind total removal of the facility versus reconfiguring it in a manner that isn't problematic for local activity?  In any case, there will be costs incurred in the hundreds of millions regardless of the corridor format, so simple cost isn't particularly relevant.  And how has the conclusion been reached that the local residents prefer a teardown to an underground alternative to the present structure?  Has anyone taken a real poll -- with a robust n and representative of a broad cross-section of the region's residents and business owners that indicates that teardown rather than reconfiguration is the only satisfying solution?  Or is that position merely the projection of anti-freeway/anti-automotive activists who have conflated their view as representative of the whole area?  Or maybe the only people these activists talk to on a regular basis are those with concurring opinions (self-selection at its finest!). 

And even if a real majority or even a plurality within the affected zone favors teardown, the final decision should be rendered by everyone affected by the change.  Residents live in an area; they don't own the area or possess the capability of limiting rights and prerogatives to only themselves (basically geographic tribalism).  But do everyone a favor and make sure you have broad backing for any position that, even in a limited fashion, imposes limitations on the general population (including the driving public, regardless of one's view of them!).   
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 23, 2017, 12:02:01 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ
That's what the report is about. Read through it - it's fairly compelling information.

Unless they're actually recording license plate tags and tracking vehicles from their travel origins to destinations I can't help but be very suspicious about this study.

I-45 is a major Interstate highway. There is absolutely no dispute about that. North Central Expressway leads directly from the I-45 terminus at I-30 into another major traffic corridor. The US-75 and US-69 corridor going into Oklahoma may not carry an Interstate designation but there absolutely is no denying that it is an extremely important commercial route. I would argue it's the most important non-Interstate commercial highway route in the nation. There is a hell of a lot of NAFTA traffic going along that road up to places like Chicago, New York and anywhere else in the Northeast US. It's the most direct way to get there, despite some of the traffic lights, speed traps and other shit present on the corridor in Oklahoma.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Perfxion on December 23, 2017, 10:58:17 AM
I never said that, I was pointing out that Texas has the major center of all of its highways go right through the heart of their downtown. I am aware of the number of highways and interstates in NYC as I grew up 27 miles away from it. I was stating that one can cross the area without having to travel through the heart of the business district and even bypass it easily enough without going way out of your way. One doesn't have to go into D/C, Philly, Boston, NYC to get around.

I am for keeping I-345, infact they really need to extend 45 at least into OK.

Right now, you can't bypass Houston without first getting into Houston.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2017, 03:23:00 PM
I doubt Interstate 45 will ever be extended into Oklahoma. But I am strongly in the Keep-345 camp.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 23, 2017, 04:24:28 PM
Quote from: Perfxion
Right now, you can't bypass Houston without first getting into Houston.

Extensions on the SW and NE corners of the Grand Parkway would work as a more effective bypass of Houston, but the Grand Parkway still has to be completed.

Likewise a motorist can't really bypass Dallas without getting into Dallas or other big cities adjacement to it, at least not without leaving the super highway network. Some of the "back roads," like US-380 between Denton and McKinney, are getting very busy. It's going to be a long time before the Southern half the Bush Turnpike is ever completed. Even with it and other area toll roads completed there's still going to be a lot of drivers shun-piking those routes and staying on the "free" roads, which will still put a lot of traffic downtown and on I-635.

At least Houston has a more credible strategy in its plans to remove part of the Gulf Freeway downtown. They'll dramatically increase the capacity of I-69 and I-10 on the East & North sides of downtown to accommodate I-45.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster
I doubt Interstate 45 will ever be extended into Oklahoma. But I am strongly in the Keep-345 camp.

Some political things will have to change in Oklahoma to give I-45 the potential to be routed through there. Right now certain towns along the US-69 corridor stand in the way of such development. However, more and more of that corridor is going to be converted to Interstate quality. The road will soon get upgraded to freeway quality in Calera. There's the big project in McAlester. Now a freeway quality bypass is in the works for the West side of Muskogee. As more and more of that highway is upgraded it will be harder for towns like Atoka and Stringtown to block corridor improvement.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 24, 2017, 08:13:34 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ
That's what the report is about. Read through it - it's fairly compelling information.

Unless they're actually recording license plate tags and tracking vehicles from their travel origins to destinations I can't help but be very suspicious about this study.

I-45 is a major Interstate highway. There is absolutely no dispute about that. North Central Expressway leads directly from the I-45 terminus at I-30 into another major traffic corridor. The US-75 and US-69 corridor going into Oklahoma may not carry an Interstate designation but there absolutely is no denying that it is an extremely important commercial route. I would argue it's the most important non-Interstate commercial highway route in the nation. There is a hell of a lot of NAFTA traffic going along that road up to places like Chicago, New York and anywhere else in the Northeast US. It's the most direct way to get there, despite some of the traffic lights, speed traps and other shit present on the corridor in Oklahoma.

So, because you donít like what the data suggests, youíre just going to dismiss it outright?

This is whatís so frustrating about this discussion. Not only that, but thereís constant strawmanning, acting as if the proposal is to remove all of Dallasí downtown freeway system, instead of a mile or so of it.

The same tactics were used in response to the Pierce Elevated removal in Houston as well, so it leads me to believe that the opposition is not so much to this particular plans, as it is the idea of freeway removal entirely.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 24, 2017, 12:10:14 PM
Ummm...this is a forum where the members reserve the right to reject and oppose data they disagree with.


I'm generally a supporter of urban development, and probably the most Lefty of all posters here, and *I* have some issues with New Urbanist thought concerning freeway removal. I understand the ideal of communities wanting to remove what they see as eyesores and blocks to local development, but I'm not so sure that pushing 60-80+K of traffic onto local surface streets will solve the issue, either.


I'm not for the "just go around the city" meme, either; people do actually want to go downtown or in the inner portions of major cities to do business, and if they have cars and trucks that allow them the freedom to determine where they want to go, they will use them.


Sure, we should have alternatives available to balance the transportation load, and most certainly there is a point beyond which simply building more freeways won't help. But, simply tearing down major freeways that serve essential traffic loads merely because some folks are put off by their "ugliness", without factoring in the aftereffects of where you place all that traffic, is a recipe for simple disaster.


As far as I-345 is concerned, I'm for depressing it and placing a surface boulevard on top or astride it for local access. Better that than removing it altogether.



Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: 1 on December 24, 2017, 12:32:18 PM
How many people would use I-345 going from one Dallas suburb to another? This is probably much more common than the "Houston to Oklahoma" people mentioned earlier.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 24, 2017, 01:33:16 PM
Ummm...this is a forum where the members reserve the right to reject and oppose data they disagree with.


I'm generally a supporter of urban development, and probably the most Lefty of all posters here, and *I* have some issues with New Urbanist thought concerning freeway removal. I understand the ideal of communities wanting to remove what they see as eyesores and blocks to local development, but I'm not so sure that pushing 60-80+K of traffic onto local surface streets will solve the issue, either.


I'm not for the "just go around the city" meme, either; people do actually want to go downtown or in the inner portions of major cities to do business, and if they have cars and trucks that allow them the freedom to determine where they want to go, they will use them.


Sure, we should have alternatives available to balance the transportation load, and most certainly there is a point beyond which simply building more freeways won't help. But, simply tearing down major freeways that serve essential traffic loads merely because some folks are put off by their "ugliness", without factoring in the aftereffects of where you place all that traffic, is a recipe for simple disaster.


As far as I-345 is concerned, I'm for depressing it and placing a surface boulevard on top or astride it for local access. Better that than removing it altogether.





Reject conclusions all you want; thatís your prerogative. Rejecting data, on the other hand, puts a person into Alanland territory.

Thereís nothing about the proposal that will hinder peopleís ability to reach central Dallas. The surface streets themselves were designed for high traffic capacities in this location.

To answer 1ís question- almost no one. The Dallas suburbs are primarily north and west, and most would take 635 or Loop 12 to reach the eastern suburbs.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: J N Winkler on December 24, 2017, 03:07:50 PM
I'm generally a supporter of urban development, and probably the most Lefty of all posters here, and *I* have some issues with New Urbanist thought concerning freeway removal. I understand the ideal of communities wanting to remove what they see as eyesores and blocks to local development, but I'm not so sure that pushing 60-80+K of traffic onto local surface streets will solve the issue, either.

My (possibly unfair) general impression of your posts is that you are somewhat to the right of me.

This said, in this thread I have noticed the advocates of I-345 removal have cited the CityMAP study almost as if it were scriptural authority.  I have looked it up and I note that the I-345 removal scenario assumes (1) mode shift to transit, served by bus-only lanes, and (2) completion of the Trinity Parkway (when will that ever begin construction?).

I appreciate that even with I-345 removed, there will still be alternatives for both downtown access and through trips.  However, removing it breaks the downtown Dallas freeway box, withdraws network redundancy, and forces three-legs-for-one-leg routings for certain itineraries, such as approaching downtown from the south on I-45 and then using US 75 and US 82 to bypass I-35E north of downtown Dallas.  And as Bobby5280 has pointed out upthread, Dallas is fast losing its uncongested informal 100% rural outer-outer bypasses.  The rather flip suggestion of using I-635 as a north-south bypass of downtown Dallas ignores the 12-17 miles of added driving on a freeway whose congestion level is comparable to that of I-35E now that suburb-to-suburb commutes are dominant.

The CityMAP study in any case is fairly high-level.  The study being called for in the RFQ will be more detailed and should take into account options for mitigating the operational issues and negative externalities associated with current I-345 (congestion, noise, visual obstruction, harborage of the irregularly housed, etc.) while retaining the viaduct configuration, as well as the practicalities of the trench and tunnel alternatives.

I wouldn't want to remove I-345 in expectation of a subway or other transit alternatives that might never materialize.  I think a better way of managing the risk of possible collapse in transportation investment is to reconstruct I-345, eliminating to the extent possible the operational issues it currently has, and then look at retrofitting a subway and possibly imposing congestion pricing on I-345 once it is judged that subways are viable in the local travel market.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 25, 2017, 11:37:49 PM
Under the current tax cut fever environment of conservative politics dominating both the Texas state legislature and US federal legislature, mass transit projects such as urban subway lines have giant bullseyes painted on them. I think the proposed D2 subway line is in a very fragile position. Hell, things could end up where there isn't enough money to tear down I-345 even if the tear down is approved.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 26, 2017, 01:12:27 AM
Ummm...this is a forum where the members reserve the right to reject and oppose data they disagree with.


I'm generally a supporter of urban development, and probably the most Lefty of all posters here, and *I* have some issues with New Urbanist thought concerning freeway removal. I understand the ideal of communities wanting to remove what they see as eyesores and blocks to local development, but I'm not so sure that pushing 60-80+K of traffic onto local surface streets will solve the issue, either.


I'm not for the "just go around the city" meme, either; people do actually want to go downtown or in the inner portions of major cities to do business, and if they have cars and trucks that allow them the freedom to determine where they want to go, they will use them.


Sure, we should have alternatives available to balance the transportation load, and most certainly there is a point beyond which simply building more freeways won't help. But, simply tearing down major freeways that serve essential traffic loads merely because some folks are put off by their "ugliness", without factoring in the aftereffects of where you place all that traffic, is a recipe for simple disaster.


As far as I-345 is concerned, I'm for depressing it and placing a surface boulevard on top or astride it for local access. Better that than removing it altogether.





Reject conclusions all you want; thatís your prerogative. Rejecting data, on the other hand, puts a person into Alanland territory.

Thereís nothing about the proposal that will hinder peopleís ability to reach central Dallas. The surface streets themselves were designed for high traffic capacities in this location.

To answer 1ís question- almost no one. The Dallas suburbs are primarily north and west, and most would take 635 or Loop 12 to reach the eastern suburbs.

There is a saying: Data may not lie, but people can misuse and misinterpret data.

You say that local surface streets can handle the additional traffic from removing I-345, but how would that impact the locals who would have to deal with additional traffic on those streets?

I'm just not comfortable with removing arterials that provide redundancy merely because some don't like their looks or want to punish those who choose to use autos and trucks for their transportation.  Especially when other alternatives (CCS or depressed or covered) are available.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on December 26, 2017, 07:24:40 PM
What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

They are residents, not dictators. They don't get to decide everything. If everybody had this attitude, there would be no highways anywhere in the country. TxDOT shouldn't be pandering to just the locals who live right next to the freeway. They should be fair to everybody, including those heathen folk scum who live in Plano.

What if Plano decided they didn't want the stretch of freeway that goes through it? Would you be happy with a Plano gap? What if it added 30 minutes to your trip to the Red River and points beyond? Would that be fair to you?

I have a couple of anecdotes to add. A couple of years ago, I drove from Tulsa to Dallas to see the Deftones and Incubus at the Starplex. The Starplex is right off TX 352 near the state fairgrounds and the Cotton Bowl. It is accessed from I-30 at Exit 47. I came through downtown Dallas at about 7 pm and when I got to the ramp from US 75/I-345 south to I-30 east, traffic came to a standstill. It took about 30 minutes to get from US 75 at its southern end to the TX 352 exit, a distance of a little over a mile. We were late for the show because of the traffic. Now imagine if I-345/US 75 weren't there. I might still be waiting in traffic.

I also drove from Tulsa to Dallas in 2011 to see BT (electronic dance musician) at the Lizard Lounge in Deep Ellum. I-345 looms above the neighborhood in this area, but I didn't think it was that noticeable and it looked like it would be easy to walk or drive underneath the freeway to go from one side to the other. It didn't cut the neighborhood in half like some freeways do. I didn't think it was bad at all, especially compared to some other urban freeways I've seen.

This whole thing reeks of selfishness and "fuck you, you don't matter, I'm the only one who matters"-ism. Sometimes you have to live with things you might not like. My front door is literally 200 feet from I-44. I can hear the drone of the traffic whizzing by right now. I have a good friend who lives 700 feet from me on the other side of the freeway. If the freeway wasn't there, I could walk there in a couple of minutes. I rarely use the stretch of freeway in front of my apartment. Do I want the freeway to be torn down? Absolutely not. I have learned to tune out the hiss of the passing cars and the convenience of the highway is much greater than the hassle I have to put up living so close to the freeway.

As somebody mentioned, I-345 was opened in August of 1973, 3 months before I was even born. Anybody who has moved to this neighborhood in the last 45 years has known the highway is there. Why would you move there if the freeway bothers you so much? There are plenty of places in Dallas that don't have elevated freeways.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on December 26, 2017, 07:27:31 PM
What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

When it's a city street, great.  But we're talking about a piece of the Interstate highway system here.

Why does that make a difference, in the presence of generally sufficient alternatives? People are acting as if this hasn't been given any thought whatsoever by its proponents.

It should make a difference because Interstates are intended to be a nationwide network of superhighways built to a certain standard.  As such, it should be up to more than just the local community to take a chunk of that network out.  There being a "sufficient alternative" or not should be determined by more than just the local community. 

This is not a mainline Interstate being discussed - it's a spur that serves relatively little purpose not sufficiently served by alternatives, as repeatedly mentioned. Other than a desire for some sort of Platonic network perfection, what interest do outsiders have in the functioning of this bit of roadway?

Are you joking? It is not a spur. It is a part of a major artery that goes from Houston to points north like Tulsa and Kansas City. It is part of a road of national significance. Your statement makes the assertion that it is a backwater spur to nowhere. The part of the road that is designated I-345 isn't very long, but I-345 is a part of US 75 which, along with I-45, forms a very important highway. Hyperbole is not your friend.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on December 26, 2017, 07:29:21 PM
Fuck suburbia.

Fuck everybody who isn't me. I'm the most important person in the world. The world revolves around ME.

Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: NE2 on December 26, 2017, 07:40:20 PM
Good thing you got kicked out of AAJRoads.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on December 26, 2017, 07:41:14 PM
I doubt Interstate 45 will ever be extended into Oklahoma. But I am strongly in the Keep-345 camp.

I can see it being extended to end at US 69 or the Oklahoma border, but I can't see it being extended across the Red River. If the stretch south of Calera is ever upgraded, I could see it extended to end at US 70 in Durant. I can't see it being extended any further north in the next 100 years.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: NE2 on December 26, 2017, 07:46:43 PM
Jeremy Lance: go play the guitar.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: NE2 on December 26, 2017, 07:49:16 PM
What a cuck.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 27, 2017, 11:01:50 AM
What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

When it's a city street, great.  But we're talking about a piece of the Interstate highway system here.

Why does that make a difference, in the presence of generally sufficient alternatives? People are acting as if this hasn't been given any thought whatsoever by its proponents.

It should make a difference because Interstates are intended to be a nationwide network of superhighways built to a certain standard.  As such, it should be up to more than just the local community to take a chunk of that network out.  There being a "sufficient alternative" or not should be determined by more than just the local community. 

This is not a mainline Interstate being discussed - it's a spur that serves relatively little purpose not sufficiently served by alternatives, as repeatedly mentioned. Other than a desire for some sort of Platonic network perfection, what interest do outsiders have in the functioning of this bit of roadway?

Are you joking? It is not a spur. It is a part of a major artery that goes from Houston to points north like Tulsa and Kansas City. It is part of a road of national significance. Your statement makes the assertion that it is a backwater spur to nowhere. The part of the road that is designated I-345 isn't very long, but I-345 is a part of US 75 which, along with I-45, forms a very important highway. Hyperbole is not your friend.

I've driven on 345 more than most on this board, and I can say with certainty that it functions more like a spur than anything.

45 to 30 to 35E was often just as fast as 45 to 345 to 366.

You don't get to put a freeway wherever you like just because you like freeways, and local communities have the right to rescind bad decisions when there are other options. Every other country in the world does just fine without ten-lane strips of concrete tearing their center cities apart.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: J N Winkler on December 27, 2017, 11:50:29 AM
I've driven on 345 more than most on this board, and I can say with certainty that it functions more like a spur than anything.

45 to 30 to 35E was often just as fast as 45 to 345 to 366.

If I am understanding this correctly:

I-45 to I-30 to I-35E = 1 leg of downtown Dallas freeway box.

I-45 to I-345 to SS 366 = 1 leg of downtown Dallas freeway box.

Approximately equal travel time is what one would normally expect.  On the other hand, this is what happens with I-345 removed:

I-45 to I-345 to US 75 = 1 leg of downtown Dallas freeway box.

I-45 to I-30 to I-35E to SS 366 to US 75 (I-345 removed) = 3 legs of downtown Dallas freeway box.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 27, 2017, 12:00:21 PM
I've driven on 345 more than most on this board, and I can say with certainty that it functions more like a spur than anything.

45 to 30 to 35E was often just as fast as 45 to 345 to 366.

If I am understanding this correctly:

I-45 to I-30 to I-35E = 1 leg of downtown Dallas freeway box.

I-45 to I-345 to SS 366 = 1 leg of downtown Dallas freeway box.

Approximately equal travel time is what one would normally expect.  On the other hand, this is what happens with I-345 removed:

I-45 to I-345 to US 75 = 1 leg of downtown Dallas freeway box.

I-45 to I-30 to I-35E to SS 366 to US 75 (I-345 removed) = 3 legs of downtown Dallas freeway box.

Yes. However, coming northbound from 45, it's not that much of an imposition to take the three legs. Furthermore, Cesar Chavez and the Good-Lattimer Expy are suitable relief routes for that movement, along with whatever boulevard they put there instead.

It's almost a unique situation, mainly because of the 30 or so years where there was a North Central Expressway, but no Schepps Freeway yet. There is plenty of redundant capacity that is underutilized.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: kphoger on December 27, 2017, 12:49:40 PM
There is plenty of redundant capacity that is underutilized.

The existence of a road and the existence of capacity are two different things.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 27, 2017, 12:56:57 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ
Yes. However, coming northbound from 45, it's not that much of an imposition to take the three legs. Furthermore, Cesar Chavez and the Good-Lattimer Expy are suitable relief routes for that movement, along with whatever boulevard they put there instead.

Suitable relief routes? Both of those surface streets have more than a dozen traffic lights and a lot of other intersections between their split with I-45 South of downtown and the intersection of Woodall Rodgers Freeway and North Central Expressway. Add rail road crossings to the mix and the light rail line going down the middle of Good Latimer for a few blocks. Let's not forget the area just South of downtown Dallas isn't the most safe of places either.

If I-345 was removed it would be relatively easier to just use 30, 35E & 366 to get back over to North Central Expressway rather than inching along using surface streets. Of course, the Horseshoe Project wasn't designed to handle all of the traffic from I-45 on top of the flows from I-35E & I-30. Motorists are going to be screwed either way in that scenario.

Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: US 89 on December 27, 2017, 01:21:39 PM
Right now, there are two separate ways to go north and south through Dallas: I-45/345/75 and I-35E. Taking one of them out means that almost all NS traffic would use 30-35E-366, since very few would use Cesar Chavez because it isnít a freeway (see Bobbyís post above).

That means 30-35E-366 is going to have to carry double the volume it does now, and since those freeways already congested, thatís not going to happen. And itís not like they can add lanes, either. Using 635 as a bypass is too far out of the way to be useful.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 27, 2017, 06:38:43 PM
[...]

You don't get to put a freeway wherever you like just because you like freeways, and local communities have the right to rescind bad decisions when there are other options. Every other country in the world does just fine without ten-lane strips of concrete tearing their center cities apart.

Except, it's not about merely plopping a freeway anywhere, but removing a freeway that is a major artery for traffic and forcing such traffic down already burdened surface streets. Deep Ellum and the neighborhoods in Dallas should have a say, but so should those who use the freeway. All alternatives should be considered, not just those you like.

Some people could accuse you of the same confirmation biases that you accuse others of, except against central-city freeways.

And, just because "everyone else does it" does not automatically make it an ironclad truth. The debate over how "throughpass" freeways should be handled in central cities is not as set in stone as some New Urbanists would like it to be.

Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on December 27, 2017, 06:41:54 PM
I've driven on 345 more than most on this board, and I can say with certainty that it functions more like a spur than anything.

You must not have actually driven on it. It is NOT a spur at all. It is a part of a through highway, US 75. The southern stretch of US 75 was renamed I-45 but it is still part of the same highway. It is the main route between Tulsa/Kansas City/northward destinations and Houston/southern destinations. You're wrong.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't a crucial part of the state's (and nation's) highway network. You're either very ignorant about this road or you're lying.

45 to 30 to 35E was often just as fast as 45 to 345 to 366.

But 75 south at 366 to the 45/75 interchange is much faster than taking 366 to 35E to 30 back to 45. You're moving the goalposts and talking about something that is completely different.

You don't get to put a freeway wherever you like just because you like freeways, and local communities have the right to rescind bad decisions when there are other options. Every other country in the world does just fine without ten-lane strips of concrete tearing their center cities apart.

I'm not trying to put a freeway up. The freeway has been there for 45 years. I don't know what you are trying to say by "put(ting) a freeway" up. You're the one who is wanting to change things.

You don't get to tear a freeway down just because you don't like freeways. You're selfish and hypocritical.

And the locals from the neighborhood don't get to make that choice alone. Their opinion doesn't trump (Ha!) the opinion of those who use the highway every day.

And you can't compare the US to other countries. Apples and oranges. The countries that I assume you are referring to are much smaller and more densely populated than the US. They have lots of trains in other countries. In the US, we drive on roads. If you don't like it, move to Lisbon or Prague.

And building the Central Freeway wasn't a bad decision. It was a no-brainer.

I don't understand why you freeway haters think it's OK to have a 1 mile gap in a major artery that not only serves the neighborhood, not only the city, not only the county, not only the metro, not only the region, not only the state but the entire country just because you don't like looking at it. Oh, your poor little eyes are so mistreated having to look at that big mean bully freeway. My heart cries for you.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on December 27, 2017, 06:46:52 PM
I've driven on 345 more than most on this board, and I can say with certainty that it functions more like a spur than anything.

45 to 30 to 35E was often just as fast as 45 to 345 to 366.

If I am understanding this correctly:

I-45 to I-30 to I-35E = 1 leg of downtown Dallas freeway box.

I-45 to I-345 to SS 366 = 1 leg of downtown Dallas freeway box.

Approximately equal travel time is what one would normally expect.  On the other hand, this is what happens with I-345 removed:

I-45 to I-345 to US 75 = 1 leg of downtown Dallas freeway box.

I-45 to I-30 to I-35E to SS 366 to US 75 (I-345 removed) = 3 legs of downtown Dallas freeway box.

If these car haters get their way, it won't only be US 75 that is removed. As soon as it is gone they will descend like vultures and whine until they remove the Rogers, Stemmons and Thornton freeways from downtown Dallas. Talk about a dystopian traffic nightmare.

Have you car haters even taken into account the amount of pollution that these cars will emit sitting at traffic lights and putt putting through downtown at 30 MPH? Do you even think things like this through or do you just rely on your emotions?

Not to get too political, but when it comes to highways and guns, the Far Left acts like the Far Right acts about everything else. Emotion, emotion, emotion. No rationality whatsoever. Think with your brain, not your heart.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on December 27, 2017, 07:05:23 PM
Yes. However, coming northbound from 45, it's not that much of an imposition to take the three legs. Furthermore, Cesar Chavez and the Good-Lattimer Expy are suitable relief routes for that movement, along with whatever boulevard they put there instead.

If you remove 75, all that traffic will be forced onto I-30/I-35E/TX 366. Those highways are already jammed with traffic as it is. How bad do you think it will be with all this extra traffic?

Like I said, you car haters don't think things through. You just act irrationally and emotionally.

I did think things through. Here are some cold, hard facts. In 2016, an average of 177,340 vehicles a day used US 75/I-345 between I-30 and TX 366. 218,840 vehicles used I-30 between I-45/US 75 and I-35E, 224,462 vehicles used I-35E between I-30 and TX 366 and 204,709 vehicles used TX 366 between I-35E and US 75. Add those 177,340 vehicles to the other three sides of the "downtown loop" and you have an absolute nightmare.

You would have to widen the N, S and W legs to 20 lanes each to handle the traffic. There simply isn't room for that many lanes.

I-345 doesn't split residential neighborhoods in half, There are few if any single-family homes inside the "downtown loop".

Numbers don't lie. Emotions do.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on December 27, 2017, 07:32:59 PM
By the way, "TXtoNJ", the 2016 traffic count on the I-345 section of US 75 is 182,863 just south of TX 366. Just to the north of TX 366 on US 75, the traffic count is 251,808. Your claim that I-345 is a "spur" is a lie of Trumpian proportions.

Another tidbit that hasn't been mentioned is that the ramp from westbound TX 366 to southbound I-35E is a single lane ramp. Oops. Like I said, you didn't think it through.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on December 27, 2017, 07:49:54 PM
Here are the traffic counts in downtown Dallas. Note that traffic INCREASES on US 75 north of TX 366:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4633/39312122952_d66e0ab239_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 27, 2017, 08:27:02 PM
Yes. However, coming northbound from 45, it's not that much of an imposition to take the three legs. Furthermore, Cesar Chavez and the Good-Lattimer Expy are suitable relief routes for that movement, along with whatever boulevard they put there instead.

If you remove 75, all that traffic will be forced onto I-30/I-35E/TX 366. Those highways are already jammed with traffic as it is. How bad do you think it will be with all this extra traffic?

Like I said, you car haters don't think things through. You just act irrationally and emotionally.

I did think things through. Here are some cold, hard facts. In 2016, an average of 177,340 vehicles a day used US 75/I-345 between I-30 and TX 366. 218,840 vehicles used I-30 between I-45/US 75 and I-35E, 224,462 vehicles used I-35E between I-30 and TX 366 and 204,709 vehicles used TX 366 between I-35E and US 75. Add those 177,340 vehicles to the other three sides of the "downtown loop" and you have an absolute nightmare.

You would have to widen the N, S and W legs to 20 lanes each to handle the traffic. There simply isn't room for that many lanes.

I-345 doesn't split residential neighborhoods in half, There are few if any single-family homes inside the "downtown loop".

Numbers don't lie. Emotions do.

Whoo lord, the projection here.

I'm not against freeways, at all. Just this one.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on December 27, 2017, 09:03:57 PM
Nobody has given a rational reason to tear down this freeway. It's all been emotionally charged excuses like "It's ugly" or "I don't like looking at it."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've seen on the ground and by looking at aerial maps, it doesn't appear that I-345/US 75 cut any neighborhoods in half. It appears to be a commercial district.

Again, give me a rational reason to remove this freeway. I, along with several others in this thread, have given many rational, logical reasons to leave it there. All I've heard is nonsense. Think with your brain, not your heart or gut.

Also, you didn't bother to refute my claims. I refuted yours and provided solid evidence. If I'm wrong tell me why I am. I have seen zero evidence that my stance is incorrect.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: US 89 on December 28, 2017, 12:16:08 AM
Here are the traffic counts in downtown Dallas. Note that traffic INCREASES on US 75 north of TX 366:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4633/39312122952_d66e0ab239_c.jpg)

The line of thinking seems to be this: 366, 30, and 35E get more traffic than 345 does, therefore 345 doesnít need to exist. Complete BS.

TXtoNJís arguments seem to focus on the movement from I-35E to US 75 and vice versa. We canít forget the 45 to 75 movement...and originally, that was all US 75! Some people forget that 75 used to go south through Houston all the way to Galveston, as well as north. The only reason 75 doesnít go south from Dallas anymore is that it was replaced by I-45.
If you remove 345, you create a hole in a major north-south route, detouring all its traffic into roads that are already over capacity serving different movements.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on December 28, 2017, 01:14:09 AM
TXtoNJís arguments seem to focus on the movement from I-35E to US 75 and vice versa. We canít forget the 45 to 75 movement...and originally, that was all US 75! Some people forget that 75 used to go south through Houston all the way to Galveston, as well as north. The only reason 75 doesnít go south from Dallas anymore is that it was replaced by I-45.
If you remove 345, you create a hole in a major north-south route, detouring all its traffic into roads that are already over capacity serving different movements.

This guy gets it.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 28, 2017, 09:43:32 AM
Here are the traffic counts in downtown Dallas. Note that traffic INCREASES on US 75 north of TX 366:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4633/39312122952_d66e0ab239_c.jpg)

The line of thinking seems to be this: 366, 30, and 35E get more traffic than 345 does, therefore 345 doesnít need to exist. Complete BS.

TXtoNJís arguments seem to focus on the movement from I-35E to US 75 and vice versa. We canít forget the 45 to 75 movement...and originally, that was all US 75! Some people forget that 75 used to go south through Houston all the way to Galveston, as well as north. The only reason 75 doesnít go south from Dallas anymore is that it was replaced by I-45.
If you remove 345, you create a hole in a major north-south route, detouring all its traffic into roads that are already over capacity serving different movements.

Very little traffic is going from Central to Schepps, and that traffic has other options (635, DNT, Loop 12).

If the reason you want to maintain this highway and continuing impacting a neighborhood like this is to maintain some sense of Platonic route continuity, then I'd say your priorities are very much out of order.

Quote
If I'm wrong tell me why I am. I have seen zero evidence that my stance is incorrect.

It's been provided several times in this thread. You're not going to give in on this one, though, because it seems to be ideological with you. You're basing things off a map instead of what people on the ground are telling you.

People want to live in a nice, pleasant city that's geared toward its residents. You want big urban freeways and to never give in to those who want something different. Why are you in the right here?
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: 1 on December 28, 2017, 09:48:07 AM
Very little traffic is going from Central to Schepps

Do you have data to back up this claim?
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 28, 2017, 09:53:36 AM
Very little traffic is going from Central to Schepps

Do you have data to back up this claim?

Poke around the forum.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: kphoger on December 28, 2017, 11:24:49 AM
Very little traffic is going from Central to Schepps

Do you have data to back up this claim?

Poke around the forum.

I just re-read all of your posts in this thread, and quoted below is the only post I found of yours that comes close to providing data.  Everything else is personal opinion and personal experience.  So tell us, what data did I miss?

That's what the report is about. Read through it - it's fairly compelling information.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: J N Winkler on December 28, 2017, 12:03:27 PM
The report presumably being talked about (first link 25 MB, second link 88 MB):

http://dallascitymap.com/CityMAP_Briefing_092716.compressed.pdf

http://dallascitymap.com/DallasCityMAP_09272016_compressed.pdf

As noted upthread, the I-345 removal scenario assumes mode shift to transit and completion of the Trinity Parkway.

The main reason I am not joining the rush to reduce the debate to "Where do the 180,000 cars go?" in spite of my own reservations about I-345 removal is that screenline AADT does not tell the whole story.  It matters where the cars are going, the routes they are taking to get to their respective destinations, and the sensitivity of those journeys to travel time cost and reliability under various network revision scenarios.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: mrsman on December 29, 2017, 03:59:21 PM
I've driven on 345 more than most on this board, and I can say with certainty that it functions more like a spur than anything.

45 to 30 to 35E was often just as fast as 45 to 345 to 366.

If I am understanding this correctly:

I-45 to I-30 to I-35E = 1 leg of downtown Dallas freeway box.

I-45 to I-345 to SS 366 = 1 leg of downtown Dallas freeway box.

Approximately equal travel time is what one would normally expect.  On the other hand, this is what happens with I-345 removed:

I-45 to I-345 to US 75 = 1 leg of downtown Dallas freeway box.

I-45 to I-30 to I-35E to SS 366 to US 75 (I-345 removed) = 3 legs of downtown Dallas freeway box.

This notion of the freeway box is really sound.  With the removal of I-345, you are forcing all of the traffic that would take the east side of the box (US 75 to I-45 or US 75 to I-30 East) to take the other 3 sides of the box to compensate for the removal.

All the traffic now has to travel further.  All the traffic now has to join in with the other freeways that are already clogged and add to the mess.  All for what?

Another thing:  There are already many radial traffic flows flowing into the Stemmons Freeway:  I-35E, 114, 183, and DNT.  Should we add another flow of traffic from US 75 into that mix?

The qn shouldn't be how should we get rid of I-345.  The qn should be how to better utilize I-345 so that it provides relief to the existing freeways that are already there.  Is there a better way Us 75 and 366 to form a better connection between I-35E and I-30 east or I-45?

This freeways is not a spur like Milwaukee's Park East freeway or SF's Embarcadero. It is a vital connector between two major radial routes.  Even if it is less busy than I-35E, does not mean that it should be removed completely.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on December 29, 2017, 04:47:03 PM
I keep hearing how I-345 "cuts through a neighborhood". Correct me if I'm wrong, but judging from aerial photographs, there are no houses close to I-345, just commercial and/or industrial buildings. The claim that I-345 "cuts through a neighborhood" is categorically false, as is much of the information and alternative facts cited by the anti-I-345 crowd. I don't think the presence of I-345 harms the ambience of the Lizard Lounge one bit.

If you want to live in what you call a "nice, pleasant city" then don't move where there has been an elevated freeway for 45 years. Period. Move to San Francisco if you want that shit. I like knowing that if I go to Dallas, I can get from McKinney to the fairgrounds without having to sit at traffic lights or backtrack 15 miles just to get there.

What "neighborhood" does I-345 cut through here?

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4728/38499128255_1f30a44d3d_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on December 29, 2017, 04:49:57 PM
Very little traffic is going from Central to Schepps

Do you have data to back up this claim?
No, I don't have one damn shred of data to back up my emotion-based irrational claim.

FIFY
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 29, 2017, 05:15:33 PM
Very little traffic is going from Central to Schepps

Do you have data to back up this claim?
No, I don't have one damn shred of data to back up my emotion-based irrational claim.

FIFY

Try again. Start with the CityMAP data that J N Winkler so graciously provided again. And actually visit Deep Ellum so you can see just how wrong you are about the land use.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 29, 2017, 05:31:29 PM
Over the past 15 years a decent number of apartment buildings and condominiums have been built near US-75/unsigned I-345 on what used to be somewhat run down industrial looking land. And I think that exposes the true motivation for getting rid of I-345: make way for some high priced, douchey luxury condos built within spitting distance of Deep Ellum. If the highway is removed some real estate guys might make a bunch of money on the building development deals. But that all assumes we won't have another serious downturn in real estate (even though a really bad new pricing bubble already exists).
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: kphoger on December 29, 2017, 06:53:34 PM
Very little traffic is going from Central to Schepps

Do you have data to back up this claim?
No, I don't have one damn shred of data to back up my emotion-based irrational claim.

FIFY

Try again. Start with the CityMAP data that J N Winkler so graciously provided again. And actually visit Deep Ellum so you can see just how wrong you are about the land use.

Looking at those reports linked to by users such as MaxConcrete, austinri, and J N Winkler (fortunately, the pertinent info in the feasibility study from the OP is duplicated in the CityMAP report), I find the following data.

North Central Expressway (southbound US-75) traffic

Morning rush ó 67% local destination, 11% continuing to I-45.
Afternoon rush ó 43% local destination, 28% continuing to I-45.

In the morning, more traffic continues to I-45 than to any other radiating freeway.  In the afternoon, traffic continuing to I-45 is roughly the same as traffic continuing to all other radiating freeways combined (28% compared to 29%).

Julius Schepps Freeway (northbound I-45) traffic

Morning rush ó 25% local destination, 38% continuing to US-75.
Afternoon rush ó 40% local destination, 24% continuing to US-75.

As expected, traffic patterns in this direction are just flip-flopped.  In the morning, traffic continuing to US-75 is roughly the same as traffic continuing to all other radiating freeways combined (38% compared to 37%).  In the afternoon, more traffic continues to US-75 than to any other radiating freeway.



So what do I see in those numbers?

I see that, while most trips originating on either US-75 or I-45 do indeed have a local destination, the northbound morning rush is a clear counterexample; more traffic continues through downtown on I-345 than uses it to reach a local destination.

And, while the southbound afternoon rush isn't quite as dramatic, roughly 2 out of 7 drivers continue through downtown on I-345 rather than using it to reach a local destination.

And, finally, I see missing information.  What percentage of drivers use I-345 to transition between northern I-35E and either eastern I-30 or US-75?  I see data for how many drivers start out on one and end up on the other, but we don't know how many are using the southern part of the box (without I-345) and how many are using the northern part of the box (including I-345).  And those numbers could end up being critical pieces of information.  For example:  in the afternoon, 39% of drivers coming south on I-35E are headed through downtown to either US-75 or I-30.  How many of those drivers use I-345 as part of that trip?  Who knows?
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Road Hog on December 29, 2017, 08:06:49 PM
I keep hearing how I-345 "cuts through a neighborhood". Correct me if I'm wrong, but judging from aerial photographs, there are no houses close to I-345, just commercial and/or industrial buildings. The claim that I-345 "cuts through a neighborhood" is categorically false, as is much of the information and alternative facts cited by the anti-I-345 crowd. I don't think the presence of I-345 harms the ambience of the Lizard Lounge one bit.

If you want to live in what you call a "nice, pleasant city" then don't move where there has been an elevated freeway for 45 years. Period. Move to San Francisco if you want that shit. I like knowing that if I go to Dallas, I can get from McKinney to the fairgrounds without having to sit at traffic lights or backtrack 15 miles just to get there.

What "neighborhood" does I-345 cut through here?

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4728/38499128255_1f30a44d3d_b.jpg)
In the photo you posted, I counted no less than eight streets that pass underneath I-345. So in agreeing with you, I fail to see how Deep Ellum is cut off from the rest of downtown. An elevated freeway may not be scenic, but it's much less of an obstacle to neighborhood traffic than a surface freeway. (I have no problem with a cut-and-cover platform park, a la Woodall.)
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: kphoger on December 29, 2017, 08:23:38 PM
In the photo you posted, I counted no less than eight streets that pass underneath I-345. So in agreeing with you, I fail to see how Deep Ellum is cut off from the rest of downtown. An elevated freeway may not be scenic, but it's much less of an obstacle to neighborhood traffic than a surface freeway. (I have no problem with a cut-and-cover platform park, a la Woodall.)

Six of which are in the neighborhood of Deep Ellum itself.
Elm, Main, Commerce, Good Latimer, Canton, and Taylor all continue through.
The only ones that don't are basically just alleys.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Duke87 on December 30, 2017, 01:11:09 PM
I don't think burying or building below grade is an option, D2 is going in.

According to DART's website (https://www.dart.org/about/expansion/downtowndallas.asp#septlpa), the preferred alternative has D2 at surface level where it crosses I-345. If built as such, this would not be an obstacle to 345 being moved below grade.

The main reason I am not joining the rush to reduce the debate to "Where do the 180,000 cars go?" in spite of my own reservations about I-345 removal is that screenline AADT does not tell the whole story.  It matters where the cars are going, the routes they are taking to get to their respective destinations, and the sensitivity of those journeys to travel time cost and reliability under various network revision scenarios.

Indeed. What will inevitably happen if any removal scenario starts moving forward is that some of the people who live in Joppa or White Rock Hills and work in Uptown or Richardson, etc. will say "shit, my commute is gonna get jacked up, time to move or find a new job so I don't have to drive through there anymore".

People's origins and destinations are not permanently fixed. If they find they "can't get there from here", many will simply stop trying.

So what you really have to weigh in this debate is the value of being able to "get there from here" against the value unlocked by having the freeway gone. Both are difficult to quantify and much of the valuation is subjective, so there isn't an inherently right or wrong answer.

But yes I, like most here, am skeptical of the merit of flat out removing functionally useful infrastructure for the sake of improving local aesthetics.

I could get behind the idea of moving it below grade and capping it, which would achieve significant aesthetic improvement while maintaining the throughput capacity.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2017, 10:15:24 PM
Quote from: Duke87
According to DART's website, the preferred alternative has D2 at surface level where it crosses I-345. If built as such, this would not be an obstacle to 345 being moved below grade.

On Sept 13 the Dallas City Council endorsed the Victory-Commerce-Swiss alignment, which would be built mostly below grade. That includes 2 subway stations on either side of Carpenter Park and the I-345 freeway. Aside from that there's nothing to prevent a highway tunnel from being built under a subway tunnel or vice versa. The soil is more stable for tunneling on the East side of downtown than it is on the West side closer to the Trinity River. That's one of the bigger engineering concerns for the D2 subway line.

Then there's the issue of funding for D2. Not all the money is there for it. And then there's the pesky $1.1 Billion Cotton Belt connector. Not everyone thinks the D2 subway line downtown needs to be the top priority.

Quote from: Duke87
Indeed. What will inevitably happen if any removal scenario starts moving forward is that some of the people who live in Joppa or White Rock Hills and work in Uptown or Richardson, etc. will say "shit, my commute is gonna get jacked up, time to move or find a new job so I don't have to drive through there anymore".

This is the consequence I don't think many of the anti-freeway folks who like Deep Ellum are considering at all. Deep Ellum has absolutely no monopoly at all on places where to socialize, eat, drink, etc in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. There's places all over the Metroplex where people can do that. Make it a royal pain in the ass for visitors to get in and out of Deep Ellum and you'll see a lot less visitors frequenting that area. I know good and well all the taverns, clubs and other businesses in that area can't survive alone on the money from people who live within walking distance. Hell, I live in Oklahoma and I've partied in Deep Ellum more than a few times over the years. One of the attractions for that zone to people out live outside downtown or even out of state is that it's directly connected to the rest of the highway network. If the downtown residents want to cut off access so only they can hang out in Deep Ellum that's on them. They'll get rid of many potential customers who can wine and dine just as easily in Addison, Lewisville, Arlington and lots of other places. And then when the business drops off we'll see how all those luxury condos hold on to their value.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Duke87 on December 31, 2017, 12:06:25 AM
This is the consequence I don't think many of the anti-freeway folks who like Deep Ellum are considering at all. Deep Ellum has absolutely no monopoly at all on places where to socialize, eat, drink, etc in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. There's places all over the Metroplex where people can do that. Make it a royal pain in the ass for visitors to get in and out of Deep Ellum and you'll see a lot less visitors frequenting that area.

I don't see how removing 345 would have any significant impact on the difficulty of getting to Deep Ellum specifically, since anyone going there is exiting the freeway network there already anyway.

I also would therefore expect any removal to increase, not decrease, the value of nearby real estate, because of the reduced noise and improved aesthetics.

The losers in this scenario are the people just passing through, who will suddenly lack a good means of doing so.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: austrini on December 31, 2017, 04:01:12 PM
I keep hearing how I-345 "cuts through a neighborhood". Correct me if I'm wrong, but judging from aerial photographs, there are no houses close to I-345, just commercial and/or industrial buildings.

The vast majority of buildings in your aerial photo are residential.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on December 31, 2017, 07:25:55 PM
Try again. Start with the CityMAP data that J N Winkler so graciously provided again. And actually visit Deep Ellum so you can see just how wrong you are about the land use.

I have been to Deep Ellum before. There are no single family homes close to the highway.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on December 31, 2017, 07:29:26 PM
I keep hearing how I-345 "cuts through a neighborhood". Correct me if I'm wrong, but judging from aerial photographs, there are no houses close to I-345, just commercial and/or industrial buildings.

The vast majority of buildings in your aerial photo are residential.

Apartment buildings?
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2018, 03:46:34 AM
Yeah. It looks like luxury apartments and condos. Look at historical imagery in Google Earth. Most of that stuff didn't exist in the year 2000. A lot of it is fairly new. Getting rid of the I-345 freeway would open space for building even more of the luxury condo stuff.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Perfxion on January 01, 2018, 08:41:10 AM
So they built luxury apartments next to a 30+ year old freeway and now want the freeway removed because it cuts off the neighborhood? That makes as much sense as a church building next to a strip club then complaining to the city that the strip club is too close to the church.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2018, 12:17:14 PM
Some little churches built in metal industrial buildings and the like have been strategically built near bars and topless joints as a ploy to get them shut down. Some cities and towns in the bible belt have had ordinances against bars and strip clubs operating within a certain distance of a church. If the existing bar or strip club has some incident where the town can suspend its liquor license the license would end up suspended permanently.

Likewise, these luxury condos near downtown Dallas and Deep Ellum are built with a somewhat similar ploy, but in a more slippery, sneaky way. The real estate developers get on the side of the New Urbanists who hate freeways and dream of trans-continental bike paths. They adopt the New Urbanist talking points and help the cause because it ultimately aids their goal of getting their hands on a whole lot of land formerly occupied by a freeway. Meanwhile the real estate guys and anti-freeway folks hope everyone else doesn't remember the I-345 freeway was there first, leap-frogging what used to be the ass-end of downtown Dallas. They also hope no one realizes the thing going on with the condo development is gentrification. Once the I-345 freeway is removed and swallowed up with high priced condo buildings the Deep Ellum neighborhood can be transformed from being a night life party zone to a place where you need to have a good suit and maybe be white in order to hang out there.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: sparker on January 01, 2018, 04:38:52 PM
So they built luxury apartments next to a 30+ year old freeway and now want the freeway removed because it cuts off the neighborhood? That makes as much sense as a church building next to a strip club then complaining to the city that the strip club is too close to the church.
Some little churches built in metal industrial buildings and the like have been strategically built near bars and topless joints as a ploy to get them shut down. Some cities and towns in the bible belt have had ordinances against bars and strip clubs operating within a certain distance of a church. If the existing bar or strip club has some incident where the town can suspend its liquor license the license would end up suspended permanently.

Likewise, these luxury condos near downtown Dallas and Deep Ellum are built with a somewhat similar ploy, but in a more slippery, sneaky way. The real estate developers get on the side of the New Urbanists who hate freeways and dream of trans-continental bike paths. They adopt the New Urbanist talking points and help the cause because it ultimately aids their goal of getting their hands on a whole lot of land formerly occupied by a freeway. Meanwhile the real estate guys and anti-freeway folks hope everyone else doesn't remember the I-345 freeway was there first, leap-frogging what used to be the ass-end of downtown Dallas. They also hope no one realizes the thing going on with the condo development is gentrification. Once the I-345 freeway is removed and swallowed up with high priced condo buildings the Deep Ellum neighborhood can be transformed from being a night life party zone to a place where you need to have a good suit and maybe be white in order to hang out there.

Actually, that happened in Corona, CA in the late '90's; an Anaheim strip club looking to relocate to Corona, tentatively secured a location in an industrial strip near the CA 91/CA 71 junction in Corona near Prado Dam.  When a local church (of the fundamentalist/evangelical sort) got wind of this, they very quickly -- like within a month -- leased out three units next to where the strip club intended to move and moved their facility (which had been in a similar facility in central Corona) to that location and immediately petitioned the Corona zoning commission to deny permission for the club -- which was granted in short order.  The club ended up moving to another place along the 91 freeway in east Anaheim.  Heard about this from the club owner; once moved, my company converted their main raised stage into a series of subwoofer enclosures! 

But that's not a new tactic; with city zoning ordinances as they are, it's relatively easy for a city -- or developers (or other entities) with connections to city government -- to make efforts to tailor the urban environment to their own advantage.  Unfortunately, many city planners tacitly encourage gentrification; they see that as a viable way to ensure that tax dollars (property & sales) keep accruing to the city, particularly as expenses rise; in some jurisdictions, it has become a vicious cycle!     
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on January 02, 2018, 11:01:55 AM
Try again. Start with the CityMAP data that J N Winkler so graciously provided again. And actually visit Deep Ellum so you can see just how wrong you are about the land use.

I have been to Deep Ellum before. There are no single family homes close to the highway.

Moving the goalposts.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on January 03, 2018, 12:23:56 AM
Moving the goalposts.

If anybody is moving anything, it isn't me. I've proven you wrong on about a dozen points. Are you going to admit you were wrong?
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on January 03, 2018, 01:44:14 PM
Moving the goalposts.

If anybody is moving anything, it isn't me. I've proven you wrong on about a dozen points. Are you going to admit you were wrong?

Haven't proven me wrong on a thing. I've pointed you to good information, but you can lead a horse to water...

Truth is, we prioritize different things. You want big freeways, fast speeds, neighborhoods be damned. I want interesting neighborhoods, and then fast freeways outside of those neighborhoods. I think my way of looking at it is a bit more accommodating to different kinds of people. You seem to think that different kinds of people shouldn't have their opinions recognized at all. So it goes.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: 1 on January 03, 2018, 01:52:32 PM
Moving the goalposts.

If anybody is moving anything, it isn't me. I've proven you wrong on about a dozen points. Are you going to admit you were wrong?

Haven't proven me wrong on a thing. I've pointed you to good information, but you can lead a horse to water...

Replies #129 (by bugo, about cutting through a residential neighborhood) and #133 (by kphoger, about how much traffic goes through downtown).
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on January 03, 2018, 01:58:03 PM
Moving the goalposts.

If anybody is moving anything, it isn't me. I've proven you wrong on about a dozen points. Are you going to admit you were wrong?

Haven't proven me wrong on a thing. I've pointed you to good information, but you can lead a horse to water...

Replies #129 (by bugo, about cutting through a residential neighborhood) and #133 (by kphoger, about how much traffic goes through downtown).

Nope. 129 - there are plenty of apartments around there, they count. Mixed use prior to freeway construction, too.

133 - I said that most traffic ends up downtown, and that downtown plus out-of-town traffic far outweighs traffic using it for suburb-to-suburb travel. Nothing he posted contradicted it.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: kphoger on January 03, 2018, 02:15:49 PM
while most trips originating on either US-75 or I-45 do indeed have a local destination, the northbound morning rush is a clear counterexample; more traffic continues through downtown on I-345 than uses it to reach a local destination.

I said that most traffic ends up downtown, and that downtown plus out-of-town traffic far outweighs traffic using it for suburb-to-suburb travel.

How is this not a contradiction?
25% local
38% through

(https://i.imgur.com/dUVAF1r.png)
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on January 03, 2018, 02:51:29 PM
while most trips originating on either US-75 or I-45 do indeed have a local destination, the northbound morning rush is a clear counterexample; more traffic continues through downtown on I-345 than uses it to reach a local destination.

I said that most traffic ends up downtown, and that downtown plus out-of-town traffic far outweighs traffic using it for suburb-to-suburb travel.

How is this not a contradiction?
25% local
38% through

(https://i.imgur.com/dUVAF1r.png)

Because it's one direction out of many, and because of the way Dallas' population is arranged. There's far more traffic coming from the north and west than the south and east.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: kphoger on January 03, 2018, 04:24:44 PM
So the people driving suburb-to-suburb in the morning along the 45Ė345Ė75 corridor might as well not exist because it's only one direction?
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: kphoger on January 03, 2018, 05:13:43 PM


I think the issue is that you're saying "most" to mean absolute numbers, but I've been citing percentages.  Without knowing how many vehicles traveled in each direction during the AM and PM peaks, I'm not sure how we can accurately figure how many total vehicles went where.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on January 03, 2018, 05:54:37 PM


I think the issue is that you're saying "most" to mean absolute numbers, but I've been citing percentages.  Without knowing how many vehicles traveled in each direction during the AM and PM peaks, I'm not sure how we can accurately figure how many total vehicles went where.

Not trying to be trite here, but compare development on Schepps (45S) to Central Expressway (75N):

https://goo.gl/maps/YNfEXjwNQzt

It's an order of magnitude difference.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: kphoger on January 03, 2018, 05:57:38 PM


I think the issue is that you're saying "most" to mean absolute numbers, but I've been citing percentages.  Without knowing how many vehicles traveled in each direction during the AM and PM peaks, I'm not sure how we can accurately figure how many total vehicles went where.

Not trying to be trite here, but compare development on Schepps (45S) to Central Expressway (75N):

https://goo.gl/maps/YNfEXjwNQzt

It's an order of magnitude difference.

Oh, I get that.  I just wish we had actual numbers.  I was going to make a chart, and then I realized I was missing a huge part of the equations.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on January 03, 2018, 10:17:11 PM
Moving the goalposts.

If anybody is moving anything, it isn't me. I've proven you wrong on about a dozen points. Are you going to admit you were wrong?

Haven't proven me wrong on a thing. I've pointed you to good information, but you can lead a horse to water...

Truth is, we prioritize different things. You want big freeways, fast speeds, neighborhoods be damned. I want interesting neighborhoods, and then fast freeways outside of those neighborhoods. I think my way of looking at it is a bit more accommodating to different kinds of people. You seem to think that different kinds of people shouldn't have their opinions recognized at all. So it goes.

No, you want to not have to look at a big ugly freeway, 175,000 commuters a day be damned.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on January 04, 2018, 09:22:54 AM
Moving the goalposts.

If anybody is moving anything, it isn't me. I've proven you wrong on about a dozen points. Are you going to admit you were wrong?

Haven't proven me wrong on a thing. I've pointed you to good information, but you can lead a horse to water...

Truth is, we prioritize different things. You want big freeways, fast speeds, neighborhoods be damned. I want interesting neighborhoods, and then fast freeways outside of those neighborhoods. I think my way of looking at it is a bit more accommodating to different kinds of people. You seem to think that different kinds of people shouldn't have their opinions recognized at all. So it goes.

No, you want to not have to look at a big ugly freeway, 175,000 commuters a day be damned.

So you admit it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: kphoger on January 04, 2018, 01:14:14 PM
No, you want to not have to look at a big ugly freeway, 175,000 commuters a day be damned.
So you admit it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

No, he admitted that you think it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on January 04, 2018, 05:29:00 PM
No, you want to not have to look at a big ugly freeway, 175,000 commuters a day be damned.
So you admit it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

No, he admitted that you think it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

Nope, he's the one who called it a "big ugly freeway". I said nothing of the sort.

My criticism of the structure has more to do with how it disrupts street-level connectivity, not so much visual impact.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: sparker on January 04, 2018, 05:39:54 PM
No, you want to not have to look at a big ugly freeway, 175,000 commuters a day be damned.
So you admit it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

No, he admitted that you think it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

Wow -- now that the principal issue has been identified as visual blight and/or connectivity, that would seem to turn the tables toward a below-grade alternative and not necessarily a teardown effort.  The only reason for complete removal would be to satisfy those who don't like the general idea of urban freeway connectors.  And that in itself is no reason to needlessly detour 175K drivers per day just to placate a few ideologically-motivated souls.  The overall concept of the "greater good" seems to have been misplaced here -- and replaced by a "faction vs. faction" approach that, frankly, more often leads to impasse than solution.  I, for one, hate to see discourse come down to that!
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: kphoger on January 04, 2018, 05:48:51 PM
No, you want to not have to look at a big ugly freeway, 175,000 commuters a day be damned.
So you admit it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

No, he admitted that you think it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

Nope, he's the one who called it a "big ugly freeway".

He used those words.  That isn't the same thing as saying that's what he thinks it is.  And you know that.  But even if bugo does think it's a "big ugly freeway", there's still a divide between not wanting to look at it every day and being OK with looking at it every day.  A person can think the I-135 canal route through Wichita is a "big ugly freeway", but that's not at all the same thing as thinking the highway should be torn down because of it.

I said nothing of the sort.

My criticism of the structure has more to do with how it disrupts street-level connectivity, not so much visual impact.

You must admit, the language you chose in writing the quote below makes it sound an awful lot like you think I-345 is a "big ugly freeway."

ten-lane strips of concrete tearing their center cities apart.

Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: compdude787 on January 04, 2018, 10:38:21 PM
No, you want to not have to look at a big ugly freeway, 175,000 commuters a day be damned.
So you admit it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

No, he admitted that you think it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

Nope, he's the one who called it a "big ugly freeway". I said nothing of the sort.

My criticism of the structure has more to do with how it disrupts street-level connectivity, not so much visual impact.

What? How on earth does it "disrupt street-level connectivity" if it's an elevated freeway? Your arguments make no sense whatsoever.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on January 05, 2018, 10:17:10 AM
No, you want to not have to look at a big ugly freeway, 175,000 commuters a day be damned.
So you admit it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

No, he admitted that you think it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

Nope, he's the one who called it a "big ugly freeway". I said nothing of the sort.

My criticism of the structure has more to do with how it disrupts street-level connectivity, not so much visual impact.

What? How on earth does it "disrupt street-level connectivity" if it's an elevated freeway? Your arguments make no sense whatsoever.

Do you regularly walk under elevated freeways at night?
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: J N Winkler on January 05, 2018, 11:34:29 AM
Do you regularly walk under elevated freeways at night?

I wouldn't say "regularly" in my case, but I do it often enough, and without fear, even when there is no underpass lighting.  On the other hand, I am not of the gender that has to worry about catcalling or worse.

It might help take the discussion forward to introduce the concept of psychological severance.  This is what happens when the existence of a highway facility effectively prevents pedestrian-friendly development (other than through air-rights buildings and the like, which introduce their own problems) even when connectivity is maintained for drivers and pedestrians.

The issue, as I see it, is that all of the alternatives involve some degree of psychological severance, though with differing options for mitigation.  In-place reconstruction could be accommodated with underpass lighting and economically active use of the space.  Parking--even free parking--would be better than leaving it as waste ground, which in my experience looks awful when left untended because freeway ramps have a way of inhibiting plant growth underneath even when they are quite far above the ground (the Marquette Interchange in Milwaukee being a case in point).  Transit interchanges and even shopping centers are also options that have been tried successfully elsewhere.

Relocation to a trench or tunnel also affords the option of creating parkland or air-rights development over the freeway.  Lidding makes the area over the freeway more attractive to traverse because it suppresses some of the noise while removing a thicket of overcrossings that introduces uncertainty in the minds of pedestrians as to whether a crossing exists along their particular desire lines.  It also allows buildings to be located closer to the freeway right-of-way, even if not actually over the freeway itself, and thus reduces the psychological barrier of having to walk across a whole lot of nothing in particular.

With conversion to a surface boulevard, there are wider and more affordable options for human-scale development, since the existence of a freeway and access to its physical appurtenances (such as bridge decks, tunnel ceilings, etc.) does not have to be taken into account in designing foundations and support for buildings.  However, long stoplight cycles can pose an obstacle for pedestrians.

There are successful examples of each option in cities over the world that are much larger than Dallas, so none of them is an obstacle to reaching for alpha world city sophistication.  My concern is more about the implicit assumption that gentrification in Deep Ellum should continue.  I've never actually been there, but the Wikipedia article on it plays up a gritty artists'-colony vibe.  We could easily wind up in a situation where large amounts of money are spent on one of the I-345 options (even direct replacement of the viaduct) and Deep Ellum ends up with "Toronto disease":  land values go up, artists move out because it is no longer affordable for them, the area acquires a bland corporate feel, and eventually condo towers go up.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 05, 2018, 11:55:44 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ
Do you regularly walk under elevated freeways at night?

That conjures images of Alex and his droogs from A Clockwork Orange beating the crap out of an unsuspecting person they come across under a bridge. I've had no problems walking or bicycling under a freeway bridge. Check out Lily Pond Ave going under I-278 just West of the Verrazano Narrows Bridge toll plaza. I walked and biked through that dark corridor a bunch of times. It's a lot more scary looking than any of the street crossings going under I-345 in between downtown Dallas and Deep Ellum.

I would only say I-345 disrupts connectivity if it forces streets on either side of it to dead-end. That cuts off access. Currently I-345 dead ends very few streets in the downtown Dallas area. And the ones it dead ends are little back streets, like Fiora St. It doesn't physically cut off any significant streets.

In Oklahoma City the Bricktown River Walk goes underneath both the newly relocated I-40 and its replacement, OKC Blvd. The river walk goes under 4 other streets on top of that. People in OKC don't have their panties all in a twist over it.

Quote from: J N Winkler
Relocation to a trench or tunnel also affords the option of creating parkland or air-rights development over the freeway.  Lidding makes the area over the freeway more attractive to traverse because it suppresses some of the noise while removing a thicket of overcrossings that introduces uncertainty in the minds of pedestrians as to whether a crossing exists along their particular desire lines.  It also allows buildings to be located closer to the freeway right-of-way, even if not actually over the freeway itself, and thus reduces the psychological barrier of having to walk across a whole lot of nothing in particular.

I think putting the freeway into a trench and capping it the best solution, but certainly not the cheapest either. Chances are zilch on re-building I-345 as an elevated freeway, even though there are creative ways to do so in a visually attractive manner. For areas of the freeway that can't be capped the intersections spanning the freeway can be widened enough to hold greenscapes (like many highway crossings in Seattle) or even shops (like the N High Street crossing of I-670 in Columbus). Both treatments hide the freeway.

Quote from: J N Winkler
There are successful examples of each option in cities over the world that are much larger than Dallas, so none of them is an obstacle to reaching for alpha world city sophistication.  My concern is more about the implicit assumption that gentrification in Deep Ellum should continue.  I've never actually been there, but the Wikipedia article on it plays up a gritty artists'-colony vibe.  We could easily wind up in a situation where large amounts of money are spent on one of the I-345 options (even direct replacement of the viaduct) and Deep Ellum ends up with "Toronto disease":  land values go up, artists move out because it is no longer affordable for them, the area acquires a bland corporate feel, and eventually condo towers go up.

"Toronto Disease" is already progressing in downtown Dallas and Deep Ellum. Much of the land on the West side of I-345 between I-30 and Commerce St has been taken over by luxury apartment buildings. More of these are going up on the North side of Deep Ellum. With the removal of I-345 much of that freeway ROW could be eaten by more apartment buildings. The the bars and other night spots would get picked off one by one by even more apartment buildings. Then the rest of Deep Ellum could be converted from what it is now into douche-ville.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: TXtoNJ on January 05, 2018, 02:01:32 PM
Do you regularly walk under elevated freeways at night?

I wouldn't say "regularly" in my case, but I do it often enough, and without fear, even when there is no underpass lighting.  On the other hand, I am not of the gender that has to worry about catcalling or worse.

It might help take the discussion forward to introduce the concept of psychological severance.  This is what happens when the existence of a highway facility effectively prevents pedestrian-friendly development (other than through air-rights buildings and the like, which introduce their own problems) even when connectivity is maintained for drivers and pedestrians.

The issue, as I see it, is that all of the alternatives involve some degree of psychological severance, though with differing options for mitigation.  In-place reconstruction could be accommodated with underpass lighting and economically active use of the space.  Parking--even free parking--would be better than leaving it as waste ground, which in my experience looks awful when left untended because freeway ramps have a way of inhibiting plant growth underneath even when they are quite far above the ground (the Marquette Interchange in Milwaukee being a case in point).  Transit interchanges and even shopping centers are also options that have been tried successfully elsewhere.

Relocation to a trench or tunnel also affords the option of creating parkland or air-rights development over the freeway.  Lidding makes the area over the freeway more attractive to traverse because it suppresses some of the noise while removing a thicket of overcrossings that introduces uncertainty in the minds of pedestrians as to whether a crossing exists along their particular desire lines.  It also allows buildings to be located closer to the freeway right-of-way, even if not actually over the freeway itself, and thus reduces the psychological barrier of having to walk across a whole lot of nothing in particular.

With conversion to a surface boulevard, there are wider and more affordable options for human-scale development, since the existence of a freeway and access to its physical appurtenances (such as bridge decks, tunnel ceilings, etc.) does not have to be taken into account in designing foundations and support for buildings.  However, long stoplight cycles can pose an obstacle for pedestrians.

There are successful examples of each option in cities over the world that are much larger than Dallas, so none of them is an obstacle to reaching for alpha world city sophistication.  My concern is more about the implicit assumption that gentrification in Deep Ellum should continue.  I've never actually been there, but the Wikipedia article on it plays up a gritty artists'-colony vibe.  We could easily wind up in a situation where large amounts of money are spent on one of the I-345 options (even direct replacement of the viaduct) and Deep Ellum ends up with "Toronto disease":  land values go up, artists move out because it is no longer affordable for them, the area acquires a bland corporate feel, and eventually condo towers go up.

I agree that this is a valid concern.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on January 05, 2018, 06:39:32 PM
No, you want to not have to look at a big ugly freeway, 175,000 commuters a day be damned.
So you admit it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

I didn't literally say it was ugly. I like roads, and I actually think it looks pretty cool. Other than that the highway really isn't that bad and doesn't cut the neighborhood in half for long distances like some highways are.

I can't believe I'm having this discussion. I find it interesting that almost everybody in this thread who supports the removal of this highway to live near it. What a coincidence. You might not need this freeway, but there are other freeways that you use. Many of those freeways go through neighborhoods. Do they have the same rights as you do? If, say, Greenland Hills or Glencoe decide they don't want US 75 running through their neighborhood. Do they have the right to demand that we tear it down? What about all the other highways in the country that go through neighborhoods? We wouldn't have any freeways left if we did that. Removing US 75 would be a horrible precedent to set. The fact of the matter is that the neighborhoods don't get to make those decisions by themselves. There are other interests involved that will have a say in the matter. The I-345 haters on this forum think that the neighborhood can be bullying tyrants and make all decisions unilaterally, overriding state and federal interests. It's not all about you. You don't get to make those decisions. You can have an opinion, but your opinion will have little if any effect on the final decision.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on January 05, 2018, 06:40:28 PM
No, you want to not have to look at a big ugly freeway, 175,000 commuters a day be damned.
So you admit it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

No, he admitted that you think it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

You are correct.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on January 05, 2018, 06:59:23 PM
No, you want to not have to look at a big ugly freeway, 175,000 commuters a day be damned.

So you admit it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

No, he admitted that you think it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

Nope, he's the one who called it a "big ugly freeway". I said nothing of the sort.

Sarcasm goes right over your head, doesn't it?

My criticism of the structure has more to do with how it disrupts street-level connectivity, not so much visual impact.

I count 10 roads that cross under this viaduct. The stretch of highway in question is only about a mile and a half long. That's a lot of access for such a short stretch. It might strain your precious little eyes to look at it, but seriously, guys, It. Really. Isn't. That. Bad. The residents of this neighborhood sound like a bunch of petulant adolescent whiny NIMBYs to everybody outside their neighborhood. They think they deserve to make all of the decisions and they refuse to compromise. They think they're special and the freeway that THEY don't like should be removed but have little interest or compassion towards the residents of other neighborhoods, many of which slice neighborhoods in half a hell of a lot more than this one does, and don't support the removal of these freeways. They're not going to get their way, and when they realize it they are going to throw a hissy fit and act like anybody cares what they think. Who cares what those folks up in Plano think, eh?

In comparison, the highway I live near has 1 grade separation every mile through this neighborhood. It actually slices through residential areas. Nobody is advocating its removal. The residents of this neighborhood have common sense, aren't selfish and they're understanding of the needs of others. They know that they're not the only ones who matter.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on January 05, 2018, 07:01:09 PM
I, for one, hate to see discourse come down to that!

I do too. I consider one person involved in this thread to be a good friend, and I hope this person doesn't think any less of me just because I strongly disagree with them.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on January 05, 2018, 07:10:14 PM
Indeed. What will inevitably happen if any removal scenario starts moving forward is that some of the people who live in Joppa or White Rock Hills and work in Uptown or Richardson, etc. will say "shit, my commute is gonna get jacked up, time to move or find a new job so I don't have to drive through there anymore".

People's origins and destinations are not permanently fixed. If they find they "can't get there from here", many will simply stop trying.

They're going to quit their jobs, break up with their boyfriends/girlfriends who live across town, quit shopping at stores located on the other side of the freeway gap, switch churches and completely uproot their lives just because a section of a highway is missing?

So what you really have to weigh in this debate is the value of being able to "get there from here" against the value unlocked by having the freeway gone. Both are difficult to quantify and much of the valuation is subjective, so there isn't an inherently right or wrong answer.

But yes I, like most here, am skeptical of the merit of flat out removing functionally useful infrastructure for the sake of improving local aesthetics.

I could get behind the idea of moving it below grade and capping it, which would achieve significant aesthetic improvement while maintaining the throughput capacity.

That sounds pleasant and all, but who is going to pay for it? Do the residents of this neighborhood have to pay for all of it? They would arguably be the only ones benefiting from a tunnel.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on January 05, 2018, 07:21:38 PM
Moving the goalposts.

If anybody is moving anything, it isn't me. I've proven you wrong on about a dozen points. Are you going to admit you were wrong?

Haven't proven me wrong on a thing. I've pointed you to good information, but you can lead a horse to water...

Truth is, we prioritize different things. You want big freeways, fast speeds, neighborhoods be damned. I want interesting neighborhoods, and then fast freeways outside of those neighborhoods. I think my way of looking at it is a bit more accommodating to different kinds of people. You seem to think that different kinds of people shouldn't have their opinions recognized at all. So it goes.

I proved that the I-45/345/US 75 corridor had a lot of through traffic and I-345 is much more than just a spur and I backed it up with numbers and maps. I have asked for you to give me a rational, non-emotional based reason to tear down this freeway and all I've gotten is silence. I sarcastically call the freeway "ugly" and you take me literally and then try to shift the argument over to "Did Bugo call I-345 ugly?" (Correct answer: no.) There's a winning side and a losing side on this debate, and the anti-345ers aren't doing very well on their arguments.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on January 05, 2018, 07:37:29 PM
Do you regularly walk under elevated freeways at night?
It might help take the discussion forward to introduce the concept of psychological severance.  This is what happens when the existence of a highway facility effectively prevents pedestrian-friendly development (other than through air-rights buildings and the like, which introduce their own problems) even when connectivity is maintained for drivers and pedestrians.

I live 5 miles from a very nice shopping center. The shopping center is on the west side of the Arkansas River in Tulsa. I live on the east side of the river. I rarely go to this shopping center despite it being so close to me and it is an all-freeway route that doesn't go out of the way. I wonder how much of this is psychological. The bridge is only a couple of miles from me and it is a 4 lane freeway bridge, but that river forms a barrier of sort and I usually shop at places east of the river.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: MaxConcrete on June 18, 2018, 12:02:19 AM
The regional planning council (NCTCOG) approved the 2045 mobility plan on Thursday, and IH 345 is not included in the document. Below is a link to the document with the maps, and I also checked the project listing, and verified IH 345 is absent.
https://www.nctcog.org/trans/mtp/2045/documents/4JUNE2018MAPPKT.pdf (https://www.nctcog.org/trans/mtp/2045/documents/4JUNE2018MAPPKT.pdf)

A feasibility study was slated to be underway this year; I'm assuming that's still true. My perception is that a plan to sink the freeway into a trench is the most likely outcome of the study. If IH 345 was a priority item, I would expect it to be listed on the asset optimization map, since it is not a new or expanded facility.

I don't know if the absence of anything related to IH 345 means anything, but I see the possibilities as
1. (Most likely) They don't want to include it in the long-term plan until there is a firm and approved plan for the corridor, and it would be added to the plan in one of the periodic updates if/when a firm plan is devised, possibly in the next major update in 5 years.
2. Due to funding constraints, they don't plan to do anything with the corridor through 2045, which means the elevated freeway has plenty of life remaining.
3. Not including anything leaves the door open for removal. (But I would expect that there will be accompanying projects for a replacement arterial street, which would need to be added to the plan.)

I think the only thing that can be firmly concluded is that, at the current time, nothing is imminent in terms of deciding on a different future for the freeway.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Plutonic Panda on June 18, 2018, 02:22:27 AM
Fingers crossed it gets expanded and sunken.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Guysdrive780 on June 18, 2018, 07:28:18 AM
The regional planning council (NCTCOG) approved the 2045 mobility plan on Thursday, and IH 345 is not included in the document. Below is a link to the document with the maps, and I also checked the project listing, and verified IH 345 is absent.
https://www.nctcog.org/trans/mtp/2045/documents/4JUNE2018MAPPKT.pdf (https://www.nctcog.org/trans/mtp/2045/documents/4JUNE2018MAPPKT.pdf)

A feasibility study was slated to be underway this year; I'm assuming that's still true. My perception is that a plan to sink the freeway into a trench is the most likely outcome of the study. If IH 345 was a priority item, I would expect it to be listed on the asset optimization map, since it is not a new or expanded facility.

I don't know if the absence of anything related to IH 345 means anything, but I see the possibilities as
1. (Most likely) They don't want to include it in the long-term plan until there is a firm and approved plan for the corridor, and it would be added to the plan in one of the periodic updates if/when a firm plan is devised, possibly in the next major update in 5 years.
2. Due to funding constraints, they don't plan to do anything with the corridor through 2045, which means the elevated freeway has plenty of life remaining.
3. Not including anything leaves the door open for removal. (But I would expect that there will be accompanying projects for a replacement arterial street, which would need to be added to the plan.)

I think the only thing that can be firmly concluded is that, at the current time, nothing is imminent in terms of deciding on a different future for the freeway.
NCTCOG really just looks out for the countries and cities in its service areas. I-345 not being there means that NCTCOG doesn't think there is a priority. I can try and get more information on what they are planning to do because Dallas Still has it listed on the City Line Plan plus we are still talking about it back at the office. So let me get more infromation and I will come back to you.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 18, 2018, 10:39:03 AM
I'm a little surprised US-287 between Fort Worth and Ennis (from I-20 diagonally down to I-45) isn't shown on the map completely filled in blue as a freeway priority. OTOH, there are upgrade projects for segments of that highway currently in progress or in the works. The last 4.5 miles of US-287 leading up to I-45 (from TX-34 on East) are under construction for freeway conversion. The US-287/I-45 interchange needs at least one modification: the SB US-287 to NB I-45 ramp is a tight 35mph cloverleaf loop. That should be replaced with a new flyover ramp. There is at least one short stretch of freeway conversion planned on US-287 between Midlothian and Waxahachie, but the plans don't show filling in the entire gap between the freeways of both towns. Work is being done at the intersection of TX-360 and US-287. Hopefully the stretch of US-287 between Mansfield and Ennis will be brought up to Interstate quality sooner than later.

North of Fort Worth US-287 really needs to be brought up to Interstate quality to at least the TX-114 interchange in Rhome. The mobility plan only shows upgrades going about halfway there. Upgrading it all the way up to Decatur would be even better. TX-114 from Roanoke to just West of Texas Motor Speedway is in the upgrade plan. Again, extension to US-287 would be better. If they could get the freeway extended to West of the big NW ISD school complex (and its traffic lights, etc) that would be a big plus. TX DOT needs to at least get TX-114 from to US-287 set up as a "staged facility" ready to upgrade rather than waiting around for development to swallow up the corridor.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 18, 2018, 03:08:51 PM
Unless they have a funded project to alter the highway, I think they should just leave Interstate 345 alone.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: sparker on June 21, 2018, 12:56:48 AM
Unless they have a funded project to alter the highway, I think they should just leave Interstate 345 alone.

Which is what effectively will happen for the near future; the parties involved (NCTCOG, TXDOT, and the Federal agencies with a piece of the action) are simply "kicking the can down the road" regarding what to ultimately do with I-345 -- likely claiming that there wasn't enough funding to take any action (teardown, reconstruction, etc.) in the next several years.  What will happen, IMO, is that activities to expand US 75 capacity between Dallas and the state line will be watched closely -- and if implemented fully, will likely make any teardown/"boulevardization" a moot point.  Reconstruction such as trenching/capping might just be touted at that time as simply another segment of corridor improvement to correspond with the activities to the north -- and one that addresses many of the concerns of city core residents without permanent corridor disruption and/or truncation.     
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Plutonic Panda on June 21, 2018, 06:40:38 PM
What are the chances I-45 gets extended to the state line? Wouldnít that basically guarantee this never becomes a Boulevard?
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: sparker on June 21, 2018, 07:36:04 PM
What are the chances I-45 gets extended to the state line? Wouldnít that basically guarantee this never becomes a Boulevard?

Being TX, one can never count anything out (who saw I-2 coming 6 years ago?).  That being said, even with a completed facility to the state line (but needing some upgrades in any instance) the chances of TXDOT requesting an I-45 extension without some indication from OK that they were going to reciprocate with something extending at least to I-40 aren't all that great.  Of course, there's no guarantee that the boulevard option wouldn't be pursued even with a I-45 extension; political pressure could move it to a multiplex with I-20/635 around the east side; I don't see a city-core "detour" via a I-30/35E/Woodall "loop" as a viable option simply because of capacity issues.  Nonetheless, the dollar cost of a teardown and complete surface revamping for a surface boulevard concept might not be terribly different than a trench/cover concept -- it would all depend upon the final design for either option -- and how attractive each would be.  Personally, I like an "open square" idea with space for possibly a plaza or even a park with some street area bordering it -- a lot better than I like a multilane boulevard that has to be crossed by local pedestrians to get from one side to the other. 

But then I'm not one who'll have to live with the decision; just hoping that misapplied ideology doesn't guide the process!
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: In_Correct on June 22, 2018, 12:58:22 PM
"U.S. 75" even just north of "Interstate 345" is a Trenched Highway, with a subway under it. Interstate 345 spans many things that would need to be grade separated. It makes sense to have one long bridge. This is similar to Purcell Lexington Bridge which is very long. It spans a rail road, and a river. The river is usually not very wide, but they decided to make one long bridge over every thing. Guthrie has a similar long bridge over a rail and river next to each other. And in the center of Denison, there are two affected areas be cause of a rail yard. "U.S. 75" spans the rail yard, but the U.S. 69 bridge over the rail yard seems longer than necessary be cause there are only two or three rail tracks. But that was the easiest thing to do. It works and they did not care about aesthetics. However, those bridges have been replaced with "prettier" ones, which could be done for "Interstate 345". I don't know how much of the highway can be trenched with an optional park on top of it.

State Highway 366 (A State Highway) has a park on top of it. If they can dig a trench and build a park for a state highway, they can do the same thing for The Unfinished Corridor.

I can not find any bodies of water, but DART would require be moved even more below ground. As for the other rail line, I recommend it also be moved below ground. (I do not like when roads go under rail. Adding more road lanes, which happens much more often compared to adding rail tracks, will require a new rail bridge whether more rail is added or not.) Or perhaps a Truss Rail Bridge can be added. Interstate 30 Interchange will have to also be moved below ground.

Toll this section of The Unfinished Corridor ("Interstate 345"). Perhaps toll it now, even before reconstruction happens. Lots of other projects are tolled. The Lewisville Bridge is tolled. An alignment around Austin and El Paso is tolled. And really, Interstate 35E should be re-rebuilt and tolled. Any other projects ... New alignments of U.S. 277, U.S. 82, U.S. 380, should be tolled. Just toll every thing.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: 1 on June 22, 2018, 12:59:13 PM
New alignments of U.S. 277, U.S. 82, U.S. 380 should be tolled. Just toll every thing.

US routes can't be tolled unless they're toll bridges.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: In_Correct on June 22, 2018, 01:00:27 PM
New alignments of U.S. 277, U.S. 82, U.S. 380 should be tolled. Just toll every thing.

US routes can't be tolled unless they're toll bridges.

That should not be a problem. "Interstate 345" Is A Bridge.

The other needed alignments I mentioned would have to be State Highways.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: bugo on June 22, 2018, 01:07:52 PM
New alignments of U.S. 277, U.S. 82, U.S. 380 should be tolled. Just toll every thing.

US routes can't be tolled unless they're toll bridges.

*cough* US 412 *cough*
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: US 89 on June 22, 2018, 01:11:57 PM
New alignments of U.S. 277, U.S. 82, U.S. 380 should be tolled. Just toll every thing.

US routes can't be tolled unless they're toll bridges.

*cough* US 412 *cough*

With the exception of tolled bridges, you can only toll US routes if there is a reasonable toll-free alternate that is still on the US route system. Both tolled sections of US 412 in Oklahoma follow this rule: the Cimarron Turnpike has US 64, and the Cherokee Turnpike has US 412 Alternate (formerly Scenic).
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: sparker on June 22, 2018, 03:25:22 PM
With all the tolling talk being bandied about, if push comes to shove regarding financing of a long-term solution for I-345 (whether a part of an extended I-45 or not) if a solution such as cut-and-cover is selected (which won't be cheap by any means!), I wouldn't be surprised to see the costs at least partially addressed by OTR tolls over that segment; the I-30/35E/Woodall "loop" to the west would constitute the required free alternative.  As far as tolling US 75 north of there, it would likely have to be in the form of express lanes rather than full-facility tolling; the complaints from the 'burbs would be deafening otherwise. 
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: roadman65 on September 06, 2018, 05:20:14 PM
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+dallas+freeway+removal&view=detail&mid=C3DB6C45E68E36ECC53EC3DB6C45E68E36ECC53E&FORM=VIRE
I just saw this and apparently some local group is pushing for the removal of I-345 saying its crumbling and separating the city.

Forget the amount of traffic that uses it daily.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: sparker on September 06, 2018, 06:10:42 PM
^^^^^^
The video seen via the above post is over 3 years old at this time; this thread isn't even that old, so what you're hearing on it is (a) "old news" and (b) essentially a screed rather than a look at the various alternatives available re I-345, which have been rather thoroughly discussed upthread.  Whenever there's a major city undergoing changes, often in the nature of "gentrification", there's invariably one group or another who want to eliminate area freeways; this is really no different.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: txstateends on September 06, 2018, 07:13:40 PM
There are still a few hangers-on to the notion that the elevated freeway is a wall or barrier to economic and sociological movement in that part of Dallas, which is completely ridiculous.  There are apparently others that seem to think there are development possibilities by getting rid of I-345.  Occasionally social media, online sites, and traditional media locally have articles or postings about the possibilities, not really realizing the sheer amount of traffic that would have to go in other directions (and not all along Cesar Chavez or Good-Latimer) in the absence of the freeway.  TxDOT has other projects and plans closer to the front burner than anything regarding redoing/redirecting/removal of I-345 at the moment.  Not to mention the real possibility that enough could be done to promote the conversion-to-interstate of US 75 north of downtown to as faraway as OK (which many that aren't roadfans or economic development types don't seem to be aware of).  To me, that alone would preclude any long-term push to completely get rid of I-345.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: mrsman on September 06, 2018, 07:26:44 PM
Is there a reason why this highway is 345 and not a northern extension of I 45?

Nexus 5X

Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: sparker on September 06, 2018, 07:38:27 PM
There are still a few hangers-on to the notion that the elevated freeway is a wall or barrier to economic and sociological movement in that part of Dallas, which is completely ridiculous.  There are apparently others that seem to think there are development possibilities by getting rid of I-345.  Occasionally social media, online sites, and traditional media locally have articles or postings about the possibilities, not really realizing the sheer amount of traffic that would have to go in other directions (and not all along Cesar Chavez or Good-Latimer) in the absence of the freeway.  TxDOT has other projects and plans closer to the front burner than anything regarding redoing/redirecting/removal of I-345 at the moment.  Not to mention the real possibility that enough could be done to promote the conversion-to-interstate of US 75 north of downtown to as faraway as OK (which many that aren't roadfans or economic development types don't seem to be aware of).  To me, that alone would preclude any long-term push to completely get rid of I-345.

Just the notion that the freeway segment they want to eliminate may be considered as a part of an even longer new Interstate trunk designation would likely evoke an apoplectic reaction from the "teardown" activists.  It may even be seen as "doubling down" on the sort of situation they abhor -- insult added on to their perceived injury!  But, OTOH, once the activists realized that they'd now be dealing with a regional rather than simply a neighborhood issue, consideration of an alternate concept to a simple removal (cut/cover, etc.) may emerge as a longer-term acceptable solution. 
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: txstateends on September 07, 2018, 05:14:37 AM
Is there a reason why this highway is 345 and not a northern extension of I 45?

I've never understood it.  I guess they feel it's too short to sign it as I-345.  It is signed NB as US 75 and SB as I-45, but why they don't 'officially' do it one or the other, I'm not sure.  The exit numbering keeps going NB until Woodall Rodgers, but not the designation.  I guess it's the old-school "can't have an interstate end anywhere but another interstate" thing, although exceptions for that now abound.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: txstateends on September 07, 2018, 05:20:04 AM
...., consideration of an alternate concept to a simple removal (cut/cover, etc.) may emerge as a longer-term acceptable solution. 

I wouldn't mind a US 75-north-of-downtown-style trench or a deck park like over Woodall Rodgers.  Some of the naysayers have come out and said the 2nd DART line that is to be a subway-style downtown would be a problem if the freeway is trenched, but they are probably the same people that don't want it at all.  It's probably staying for a while, since TxDOT has had inspectors going over the undersides of the freeway deck for the last couple or so years looking for bridge problems/issues, and I guess fixing the stuff they run across.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: sparker on September 07, 2018, 04:51:13 PM
...., consideration of an alternate concept to a simple removal (cut/cover, etc.) may emerge as a longer-term acceptable solution. 

I wouldn't mind a US 75-north-of-downtown-style trench or a deck park like over Woodall Rodgers.  Some of the naysayers have come out and said the 2nd DART line that is to be a subway-style downtown would be a problem if the freeway is trenched, but they are probably the same people that don't want it at all.  It's probably staying for a while, since TxDOT has had inspectors going over the undersides of the freeway deck for the last couple or so years looking for bridge problems/issues, and I guess fixing the stuff they run across.

Probably right about the "naysayers"; likely their ranks are mostly political activists, possibly with a few friendly technical types as consultants.  But engineers have been layering underground facilities within cities for at least the last century; look at S.F., with surface LR on Market Street, a subway version of LR directly below it, and BART commute rail underneath it all.  Not to mention NYC, where subway lines have been ducking each other -- as well as the city utilities -- for as long as there has been the proverbial "hole in the ground", as the song goes!  A trenched I-345 (45?) down 25 feet or so wouldn't stop DART from crossing it at minus 45-50 feet!   
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Plutonic Panda on September 07, 2018, 09:52:02 PM
...., consideration of an alternate concept to a simple removal (cut/cover, etc.) may emerge as a longer-term acceptable solution. 

I wouldn't mind a US 75-north-of-downtown-style trench or a deck park like over Woodall Rodgers.  Some of the naysayers have come out and said the 2nd DART line that is to be a subway-style downtown would be a problem if the freeway is trenched, but they are probably the same people that don't want it at all.  It's probably staying for a while, since TxDOT has had inspectors going over the undersides of the freeway deck for the last couple or so years looking for bridge problems/issues, and I guess fixing the stuff they run across.
They're full of shit. A trenched or even tunneled freeway wouldnít be a subway killer. The subway will just be a little deeper in this area.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 08, 2018, 02:48:41 AM
The main thing is that's a subway killer is cost. It's ridiculous how much it costs to build a subway, much less a modest light rail line (or even trolley service) built at-grade.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Plutonic Panda on September 08, 2018, 10:33:55 PM
The main thing is that's a subway killer is cost. It's ridiculous how much it costs to build a subway, much less a modest light rail line (or even trolley service) built at-grade.
if you want something nice and done right, you have to pay for it. IMO, itís time for Dallas to invest in a real transit system with heavy rail. But you arenít wrong about the enormous expense. Thatís just something Dallas residents will need to decide if they want to pony up the money for. But any excuse of this freeway being built below grade preventing that is bs.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 10, 2018, 12:01:31 AM
No one expects something like a new subway line to be built for cheap. On the other hand it is nothing but flat out ridiculous for the rampant cost inflation on all sorts of infrastructure projects, such as subways, to continue going on completely unchecked. This kind of nonsense is going to lead to serious consequences for our nation unless some major changes happen. Few other nations pay as much as we do for building new roads, bridges and rail lines. China intends to become the center of all forms of world commerce. And they're building all kinds of major infrastructure projects for a fraction of what we pay to build the same thing.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Plutonic Panda on September 10, 2018, 07:30:38 AM
Well something has to give, because if we just keep sitting here and not doing anything, then we will be passed up and before we know it we could easily end up like previous empires. Not trying to be an alarmist here, but no one will ever believe it will happen until it does. We need to tread carefully.

The cities ans states just need to make sure this stuff gets built somehow and someway regardless of the costs because complaining about the costs and not doing anything but waiting to see if there is a way to bring them down is not a good strategy. They find the money and build the damn infrastructure. Meanwhile at the same time find ways to reduce costs for building such infrastructure in the future.

I always hear people complain about high costs but no one really ever seems to come forward with plans. The plans that do ever come forward never seem to go anywhere and donít get much attention.

I feel the same way about the gas tax in California. I get why people are so mad about the gas tax because Caltrans probably does waste money and I have read about the scandals, so thereís not a lot of trust and itís understandable why some would be against it. But until I see a plan put forward to actually address the issue and not the symptoms, I will support the gas tax because people need a wake up call here. When it comes to hitting peopleís pockets, then they start to listen, unless the infrastructure starts crumbling beneath us which if people think itís bad now it will only get worse until we start doing something about it.
Title: Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 10, 2018, 12:09:59 PM
The "something" that's going to end up giving is the nation going broke, the economy imploding and our national security put into a very weak situation. I'm very worried about what could happen over the next 10-20 years. Just making sure stuff gets built and what not regardless of cost is how we're getting into this sitation. It's blatant denial of basic financial math.

The price gouging trends in infrastructure spending have risen way beyond the trend of average income growth. Over the long term that creates an obviously unsustainable situation. The stuff gets paid with taxpayer dollars. If income growth is happening very slowly (and politicians are handing out lots of tax cut candy to pander to voters) that very easily means the won't be enough money for these big projects. The tax base is not growing in proportion to these price increases. It means adding more and more red ink to budget deficits. Taxpayers are being taken for a price gouging ride in other sectors, like higher education and health care. Adding more to the squeeze: private industry price gouging on the basics, like housing, child care, etc.

Basically there's a bunch of pigs eating the nation's seed corn for future crops. They're gouging away as much money as possible for themselves for short term gain at the expense of a sustainable future. Our nation's GDP in 2016 was $18.57 trillion. Our national debt has surpassed annual GDP; for FY 2018 it hit $21 trillion. If we want to keep going along with this insanity, just letting the pigs eat as much as they want, our national debt will be double the size of our GDP in less than 20 years. We'll see a crash in population growth due to the outrageous costs of having children. Over time that will lead to a hard fall in real estate values (more customers dying off than new ones being created) and a serious labor shortage for things such as our military.

The price excesses going on with things like subways, bridges and what not are a symptom of a much bigger, fundamental problem. It's going to take some tough regulation and other hard choices to get these price gouging trends under control. Right now lawmakers and business people are proceeding as if no problem exists. They're cashing in right now and living in denial. Some American financial experts almost jokingly look at the hopeless financial chaos going on in countries like Venezuela; like people rubber-necking at a car accident. 'Murica is not immune from winding up in the same hopeless mess.