Dallas IH 345 study RFQ

[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.

[hotdogPi]

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.

[bugo]

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?

They are residents, not dictators. They don't get to decide everything. If everybody had this attitude, there would be no highways anywhere in the country. TxDOT shouldn't be pandering to just the locals who live right next to the freeway. They should be fair to everybody, including those heathen folk scum who live in Plano.

What if Plano decided they didn't want the stretch of freeway that goes through it? Would you be happy with a Plano gap? What if it added 30 minutes to your trip to the Red River and points beyond? Would that be fair to you?

I have a couple of anecdotes to add. A couple of years ago, I drove from Tulsa to Dallas to see the Deftones and Incubus at the Starplex. The Starplex is right off TX 352 near the state fairgrounds and the Cotton Bowl. It is accessed from I-30 at Exit 47. I came through downtown Dallas at about 7 pm and when I got to the ramp from US 75/I-345 south to I-30 east, traffic came to a standstill. It took about 30 minutes to get from US 75 at its southern end to the TX 352 exit, a distance of a little over a mile. We were late for the show because of the traffic. Now imagine if I-345/US 75 weren't there. I might still be waiting in traffic.

I also drove from Tulsa to Dallas in 2011 to see BT (electronic dance musician) at the Lizard Lounge in Deep Ellum. I-345 looms above the neighborhood in this area, but I didn't think it was that noticeable and it looked like it would be easy to walk or drive underneath the freeway to go from one side to the other. It didn't cut the neighborhood in half like some freeways do. I didn't think it was bad at all, especially compared to some other urban freeways I've seen.

This whole thing reeks of selfishness and "fuck you, you don't matter, I'm the only one who matters"-ism. Sometimes you have to live with things you might not like. My front door is literally 200 feet from I-44. I can hear the drone of the traffic whizzing by right now. I have a good friend who lives 700 feet from me on the other side of the freeway. If the freeway wasn't there, I could walk there in a couple of minutes. I rarely use the stretch of freeway in front of my apartment. Do I want the freeway to be torn down? Absolutely not. I have learned to tune out the hiss of the passing cars and the convenience of the highway is much greater than the hassle I have to put up living so close to the freeway.

As somebody mentioned, I-345 was opened in August of 1973, 3 months before I was even born. Anybody who has moved to this neighborhood in the last 45 years has known the highway is there. Why would you move there if the freeway bothers you so much? There are plenty of places in Dallas that don't have elevated freeways.

[bugo]

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?

Are you joking? It is not a spur. It is a part of a major artery that goes from Houston to points north like Tulsa and Kansas City. It is part of a road of national significance. Your statement makes the assertion that it is a backwater spur to nowhere. The part of the road that is designated I-345 isn't very long, but I-345 is a part of US 75 which, along with I-45, forms a very important highway. Hyperbole is not your friend.

[bugo]

Fuck suburbia.

Fuck everybody who isn't me. I'm the most important person in the world. The world revolves around ME.

[NE2]

Good thing you got kicked out of AAJRoads.

[bugo]

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

I can see it being extended to end at US 69 or the Oklahoma border, but I can't see it being extended across the Red River. If the stretch south of Calera is ever upgraded, I could see it extended to end at US 70 in Durant. I can't see it being extended any further north in the next 100 years.

[NE2]

Jeremy Lance: go play the guitar.

[NE2]

What a cuck.

[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?

Are you joking? It is not a spur. It is a part of a major artery that goes from Houston to points north like Tulsa and Kansas City. It is part of a road of national significance. Your statement makes the assertion that it is a backwater spur to nowhere. The part of the road that is designated I-345 isn't very long, but I-345 is a part of US 75 which, along with I-45, forms a very important highway. Hyperbole is not your friend.

I've driven on 345 more than most on this board, and I can say with certainty that it functions more like a spur than anything.

45 to 30 to 35E was often just as fast as 45 to 345 to 366.

You don't get to put a freeway wherever you like just because you like freeways, and local communities have the right to rescind bad decisions when there are other options. Every other country in the world does just fine without ten-lane strips of concrete tearing their center cities apart.

[J N Winkler]

I've driven on 345 more than most on this board, and I can say with certainty that it functions more like a spur than anything.

45 to 30 to 35E was often just as fast as 45 to 345 to 366.

If I am understanding this correctly:

I-45 to I-30 to I-35E = 1 leg of downtown Dallas freeway box.

I-45 to I-345 to SS 366 = 1 leg of downtown Dallas freeway box.

Approximately equal travel time is what one would normally expect.  On the other hand, this is what happens with I-345 removed:

I-45 to I-345 to US 75 = 1 leg of downtown Dallas freeway box.

I-45 to I-30 to I-35E to SS 366 to US 75 (I-345 removed) = 3 legs of downtown Dallas freeway box.

[TXtoNJ]

I've driven on 345 more than most on this board, and I can say with certainty that it functions more like a spur than anything.

45 to 30 to 35E was often just as fast as 45 to 345 to 366.

If I am understanding this correctly:

I-45 to I-30 to I-35E = 1 leg of downtown Dallas freeway box.

I-45 to I-345 to SS 366 = 1 leg of downtown Dallas freeway box.

Approximately equal travel time is what one would normally expect.  On the other hand, this is what happens with I-345 removed:

I-45 to I-345 to US 75 = 1 leg of downtown Dallas freeway box.

I-45 to I-30 to I-35E to SS 366 to US 75 (I-345 removed) = 3 legs of downtown Dallas freeway box.

Yes. However, coming northbound from 45, it's not that much of an imposition to take the three legs. Furthermore, Cesar Chavez and the Good-Lattimer Expy are suitable relief routes for that movement, along with whatever boulevard they put there instead.

It's almost a unique situation, mainly because of the 30 or so years where there was a North Central Expressway, but no Schepps Freeway yet. There is plenty of redundant capacity that is underutilized.

[kphoger]

There is plenty of redundant capacity that is underutilized.

The existence of a road and the existence of capacity are two different things.

[Bobby5280]

Yes. However, coming northbound from 45, it's not that much of an imposition to take the three legs. Furthermore, Cesar Chavez and the Good-Lattimer Expy are suitable relief routes for that movement, along with whatever boulevard they put there instead.

Suitable relief routes? Both of those surface streets have more than a dozen traffic lights and a lot of other intersections between their split with I-45 South of downtown and the intersection of Woodall Rodgers Freeway and North Central Expressway. Add rail road crossings to the mix and the light rail line going down the middle of Good Latimer for a few blocks. Let's not forget the area just South of downtown Dallas isn't the most safe of places either.

If I-345 was removed it would be relatively easier to just use 30, 35E & 366 to get back over to North Central Expressway rather than inching along using surface streets. Of course, the Horseshoe Project wasn't designed to handle all of the traffic from I-45 on top of the flows from I-35E & I-30. Motorists are going to be screwed either way in that scenario.

[US 89]

Right now, there are two separate ways to go north and south through Dallas: I-45/345/75 and I-35E. Taking one of them out means that almost all NS traffic would use 30-35E-366, since very few would use Cesar Chavez because it isn't a freeway (see Bobby's post above).

That means 30-35E-366 is going to have to carry double the volume it does now, and since those freeways already congested, that's not going to happen. And it's not like they can add lanes, either. Using 635 as a bypass is too far out of the way to be useful.