AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ  (Read 10624 times)

TXtoNJ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 523
  • Last Login: Today at 08:09:43 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #150 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.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10059
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: May 17, 2019, 05:04:28 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #151 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

Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

TXtoNJ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 523
  • Last Login: Today at 08:09:43 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #152 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



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.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10059
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: May 17, 2019, 05:04:28 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #153 on: January 03, 2018, 04:24:44 PM »

So the people driving suburb-to-suburb in the morning along the 45–345–75 corridor might as well not exist because it's only one direction?
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10059
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: May 17, 2019, 05:04:28 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #154 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.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

TXtoNJ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 523
  • Last Login: Today at 08:09:43 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #155 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.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10059
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: May 17, 2019, 05:04:28 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #156 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.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6024
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 11:54:22 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #157 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.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

TXtoNJ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 523
  • Last Login: Today at 08:09:43 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #158 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.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10059
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: May 17, 2019, 05:04:28 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #159 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.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

TXtoNJ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 523
  • Last Login: Today at 08:09:43 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #160 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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5480
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:58:46 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #161 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!
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10059
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: May 17, 2019, 05:04:28 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #162 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.

Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

compdude787

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 456
  • Age: 23
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Last Login: May 17, 2019, 04:00:22 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #163 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.

TXtoNJ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 523
  • Last Login: Today at 08:09:43 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #164 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?
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6252
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 10:22:08 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #165 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.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1646
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 04:53:34 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #166 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.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 02:25:10 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

TXtoNJ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 523
  • Last Login: Today at 08:09:43 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #167 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.
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6024
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 11:54:22 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #168 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.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6024
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 11:54:22 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #169 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.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6024
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 11:54:22 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #170 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.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 07:03:22 PM by bugo »
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6024
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 11:54:22 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #171 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.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6024
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 11:54:22 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #172 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.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6024
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 11:54:22 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #173 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.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 07:24:12 PM by bugo »
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6024
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 11:54:22 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #174 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.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.