Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sparker]

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

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

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

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

[texaskdog]

There's no economics here beyond political will. If the suburbanites want to stay in their cars, they can stay in the suburbs. It's not as if they've spent the last 40 years building up Dallas, even as transportation policy served their needs - instead, we got the Metroplex sprawl.

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

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

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

You say sprawl like it is a bad thing.  It makes sense to spread traffic around and not have everyone go downtown.

[Bobby5280]

I'm not really saying sprawl is a bad thing. For decades it has long been the response to city cores raising living costs too damned high. People move farther away from downtown to find housing they can afford. Employers have been following suit in recent decades, leaving behind sky high lease prices in downtown offices towers for suburban campus sites. I still remember when JCPenney left behind its HQ in Manhattan for a new HQ on Legacy Drive well North of Dallas.

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

New Urbanists can preach all they want about sustainability and how everyone needs to move back to the city core and leave behind suburbia. Unfortunately the New Urbanists are either unaware or deliberately ignorant of the rampant housing speculation and price war that has been taking place. They look down their noses at people living out in the suburbs as if they're committing some kind of crime, not realizing the fact it's just too damned expensive to get a living space in these downtown areas. If you're a single person you might be able to swing it if you're willing to share the space with roommates. If you're someone with a wife and kids and require at least 2 or 3 bedrooms in your living space you pretty much need to be in the top 10% (or even top 1%) income group to afford a family sized space. There's zero acknowledgement of this from the New Urbanist crowd. They pretend issues of income inequality and housing affordability do not exist.

[TXtoNJ]

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

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

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

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

What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

[kphoger]

What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

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

[TXtoNJ]

What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

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

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

[kphoger]

What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

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

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

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

[TXtoNJ]

What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

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

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

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

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

[kphoger]

What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

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

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

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

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

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

[NE2]

Fuck suburbia.

[kphoger]

Fuck suburbia.

so....  for or against?

[TXtoNJ]

What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kphoger]

What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

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

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

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

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

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

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

My statements were in response to your question, "What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity".  I'm fine with decisions being made to eliminate a portion of Interstate highway that is little needed, but not if that decision is being made by an over-representation of the local community.

[sparker]

What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

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

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

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

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

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

And even if a real majority or even a plurality within the affected zone favors teardown, the final decision should be rendered by everyone affected by the change.  Residents live in an area; they don't own the area or possess the capability of limiting rights and prerogatives to only themselves (basically geographic tribalism).  But do everyone a favor and make sure you have broad backing for any position that, even in a limited fashion, imposes limitations on the general population (including the driving public, regardless of one's view of them!).   

[Bobby5280]

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

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

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

[Perfxion]

I never said that, I was pointing out that Texas has the major center of all of its highways go right through the heart of their downtown. I am aware of the number of highways and interstates in NYC as I grew up 27 miles away from it. I was stating that one can cross the area without having to travel through the heart of the business district and even bypass it easily enough without going way out of your way. One doesn't have to go into D/C, Philly, Boston, NYC to get around.

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

Right now, you can't bypass Houston without first getting into Houston.

[The Ghostbuster]

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

[Bobby5280]

Right now, you can't bypass Houston without first getting into Houston.

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

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

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

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

Some political things will have to change in Oklahoma to give I-45 the potential to be routed through there. Right now certain towns along the US-69 corridor stand in the way of such development. However, more and more of that corridor is going to be converted to Interstate quality. The road will soon get upgraded to freeway quality in Calera. There's the big project in McAlester. Now a freeway quality bypass is in the works for the West side of Muskogee. As more and more of that highway is upgraded it will be harder for towns like Atoka and Stringtown to block corridor improvement.

[TXtoNJ]

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

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

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

So, because you don’t like what the data suggests, you’re just going to dismiss it outright?

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

The same tactics were used in response to the Pierce Elevated removal in Houston as well, so it leads me to believe that the opposition is not so much to this particular plans, as it is the idea of freeway removal entirely.

[Anthony_JK]

Ummm...this is a forum where the members reserve the right to reject and oppose data they disagree with.


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


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


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


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

[1]

How many people would use I-345 going from one Dallas suburb to another? This is probably much more common than the "Houston to Oklahoma" people mentioned earlier.

[TXtoNJ]

Ummm...this is a forum where the members reserve the right to reject and oppose data they disagree with.


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

[J N Winkler]

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

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

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

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

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

I wouldn't want to remove I-345 in expectation of a subway or other transit alternatives that might never materialize.  I think a better way of managing the risk of possible collapse in transportation investment is to reconstruct I-345, eliminating to the extent possible the operational issues it currently has, and then look at retrofitting a subway and possibly imposing congestion pricing on I-345 once it is judged that subways are viable in the local travel market.

[Bobby5280]

Under the current tax cut fever environment of conservative politics dominating both the Texas state legislature and US federal legislature, mass transit projects such as urban subway lines have giant bullseyes painted on them. I think the proposed D2 subway line is in a very fragile position. Hell, things could end up where there isn't enough money to tear down I-345 even if the tear down is approved.

[Anthony_JK]

Ummm...this is a forum where the members reserve the right to reject and oppose data they disagree with.


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm just not comfortable with removing arterials that provide redundancy merely because some don't like their looks or want to punish those who choose to use autos and trucks for their transportation.  Especially when other alternatives (CCS or depressed or covered) are available.