Dallas IH 345 study RFQ

[TXtoNJ]

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.

[Stormwalker]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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 doesn't really mean much.

But you're 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 don't contribute anything to the metro.

[Plutonic Panda]

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 can't use that logic?

[Stormwalker]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[sparker]

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.     

[texaskdog]

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.

[Chris]

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.

[TXtoNJ]

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.

[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.

I-345 should be cut and covered, or a new highway built before I-20 to US75.

[Bobby5280]

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.

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.

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?

[AlexandriaVA]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

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.

[sparker]

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.       

[AlexandriaVA]

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.

[sparker]

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.       

[Bobby5280]

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.

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.

[sparker]

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.

[AlexandriaVA]

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.       

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.

[AlexandriaVA]

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.

[sparker]

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.       

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!

[TXtoNJ]

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?

[Plutonic Panda]

Instead the government did the right thing and invested in the future, the private automobile.