AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ  (Read 10441 times)

MaxConcrete

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 483
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 10:30:59 PM
Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« 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

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

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.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2017, 06:46:02 PM by MaxConcrete »
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 912
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 08:25:42 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #1 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 isn’t a perfect solution but seems like a good compromise. Would be at least worth studying if they intend on spending all of this money.
Logged

Chris

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2203
  • International road enthusiast

  • Age: 31
  • Location: the Netherlands
  • Last Login: Today at 05:46:40 AM
    • Flickr
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #2 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.

longhorn

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 281
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 05:33:53 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #3 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.
Logged

Interstate 69 Fan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 459
  • You cannot deny that I-69 will never be completed.

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 10:21:19 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #4 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?
Logged
Apparently I’m a fan of I-69.  Who knew.

txstateends

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1076
  • Location: north TX, not far from an interstate interchange and a US terminus
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 04:47:40 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #5 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. 
Logged
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2093
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 04:10:21 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #6 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?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5354
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 11:19:49 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #7 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.   
Logged

austrini

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 206
  • Collin County GIS admin

  • Location: Dallas
  • Last Login: April 09, 2019, 09:41:17 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #8 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.




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."
« Last Edit: December 18, 2017, 09:35:34 AM by austrini »
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2093
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 04:10:21 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #9 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.
Logged

austrini

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 206
  • Collin County GIS admin

  • Location: Dallas
  • Last Login: April 09, 2019, 09:41:17 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #10 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.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1609
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 09:27:53 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #11 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.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2017, 05:01:50 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6642
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 10:34:12 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #12 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.
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus:
US ⒉⒔50
MA ⒐22.40.99.10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚127.141.159
NH 27,111A; NY 366; GA 42,140; FL A1A; CT 32

Flickr

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 912
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 08:25:42 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #13 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 don’t use it or see benifit in it doesn’t mean it doesn’t contribute to moving good and getting people to and from work.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5354
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 11:19:49 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #14 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. 
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6016
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 02:21:26 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #15 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.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2017, 02:57:07 AM by bugo »
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 912
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 08:25:42 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #16 on: December 19, 2017, 03:27:12 AM »

^ +1! This is coming from a millennial lol
Logged

Chris

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2203
  • International road enthusiast

  • Age: 31
  • Location: the Netherlands
  • Last Login: Today at 05:46:40 AM
    • Flickr
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #17 on: December 19, 2017, 08:50:50 AM »

These are the 2016 traffic counts by TxDOT



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.

austrini

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 206
  • Collin County GIS admin

  • Location: Dallas
  • Last Login: April 09, 2019, 09:41:17 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #18 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.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2017, 10:37:55 AM by austrini »
Logged

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6642
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 10:34:12 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #19 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.
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus:
US ⒉⒔50
MA ⒐22.40.99.10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚127.141.159
NH 27,111A; NY 366; GA 42,140; FL A1A; CT 32

Flickr

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5354
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 11:19:49 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #20 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! 
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 912
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 08:25:42 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #21 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.
Logged

Brian556

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2077
  • Location: Lewisville, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:07:25 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #22 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.
Logged

austrini

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 206
  • Collin County GIS admin

  • Location: Dallas
  • Last Login: April 09, 2019, 09:41:17 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #23 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.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2017, 02:02:15 PM by austrini »
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2896
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 08:23:39 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #24 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. 
Logged

 


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.