Dallas IH 345 study RFQ

[TXtoNJ]

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?

[J N Winkler]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

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.

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.

[TXtoNJ]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[MaxConcrete]

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

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

Fingers crossed it gets expanded and sunken.

[Guysdrive780]

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

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

Unless they have a funded project to alter the highway, I think they should just leave Interstate 345 alone.

[sparker]

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.     

[Plutonic Panda]

What are the chances I-45 gets extended to the state line? Wouldn't that basically guarantee this never becomes a Boulevard?

[sparker]

What are the chances I-45 gets extended to the state line? Wouldn't 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!

[In_Correct]

"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.

[hotdogPi]

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.

[In_Correct]

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.

[bugo]

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*

[US 89]

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).

[sparker]

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.