AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ  (Read 12594 times)

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6077
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: November 18, 2019, 06:30:20 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #100 on: December 26, 2017, 07:24:40 PM »

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.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6077
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: November 18, 2019, 06:30:20 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #101 on: December 26, 2017, 07:27:31 PM »

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.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6077
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: November 18, 2019, 06:30:20 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #102 on: December 26, 2017, 07:29:21 PM »

Fuck suburbia.

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

Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13902
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 06:45:23 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #103 on: December 26, 2017, 07:40:20 PM »

Good thing you got kicked out of AAJRoads.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6077
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: November 18, 2019, 06:30:20 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #104 on: December 26, 2017, 07:41:14 PM »

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.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13902
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 06:45:23 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #105 on: December 26, 2017, 07:46:43 PM »

Jeremy Lance: go play the guitar.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13902
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 06:45:23 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #106 on: December 26, 2017, 07:49:16 PM »

What a cuck.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

TXtoNJ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 533
  • Last Login: November 17, 2019, 02:02:52 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #107 on: December 27, 2017, 11:01:50 AM »

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.
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6408
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 08:25:21 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #108 on: December 27, 2017, 11:50:29 AM »

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.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

TXtoNJ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 533
  • Last Login: November 17, 2019, 02:02:52 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #109 on: December 27, 2017, 12:00:21 PM »

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.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10819
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: November 18, 2019, 05:00:39 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #110 on: December 27, 2017, 12:49:40 PM »

There is plenty of redundant capacity that is underutilized.

The existence of a road and the existence of capacity are two different things.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1895
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: November 18, 2019, 12:11:18 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #111 on: December 27, 2017, 12:56:57 PM »

Quote from: TXtoNJ
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.

Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2268
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 09:14:32 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #112 on: December 27, 2017, 01:21:39 PM »

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 isnít a freeway (see Bobbyís 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, thatís not going to happen. And itís not like they can add lanes, either. Using 635 as a bypass is too far out of the way to be useful.
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14 82 86ID 215UT 225 345 444 575 985
US clinches: 91 491 550

Flickr
Imgur

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1349
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 09:11:12 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #113 on: December 27, 2017, 06:38:43 PM »

[...]

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.

Except, it's not about merely plopping a freeway anywhere, but removing a freeway that is a major artery for traffic and forcing such traffic down already burdened surface streets. Deep Ellum and the neighborhoods in Dallas should have a say, but so should those who use the freeway. All alternatives should be considered, not just those you like.

Some people could accuse you of the same confirmation biases that you accuse others of, except against central-city freeways.

And, just because "everyone else does it" does not automatically make it an ironclad truth. The debate over how "throughpass" freeways should be handled in central cities is not as set in stone as some New Urbanists would like it to be.

Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6077
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: November 18, 2019, 06:30:20 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #114 on: December 27, 2017, 06:41:54 PM »

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.

You must not have actually driven on it. It is NOT a spur at all. It is a part of a through highway, US 75. The southern stretch of US 75 was renamed I-45 but it is still part of the same highway. It is the main route between Tulsa/Kansas City/northward destinations and Houston/southern destinations. You're wrong.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't a crucial part of the state's (and nation's) highway network. You're either very ignorant about this road or you're lying.

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

But 75 south at 366 to the 45/75 interchange is much faster than taking 366 to 35E to 30 back to 45. You're moving the goalposts and talking about something that is completely different.

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.

I'm not trying to put a freeway up. The freeway has been there for 45 years. I don't know what you are trying to say by "put(ting) a freeway" up. You're the one who is wanting to change things.

You don't get to tear a freeway down just because you don't like freeways. You're selfish and hypocritical.

And the locals from the neighborhood don't get to make that choice alone. Their opinion doesn't trump (Ha!) the opinion of those who use the highway every day.

And you can't compare the US to other countries. Apples and oranges. The countries that I assume you are referring to are much smaller and more densely populated than the US. They have lots of trains in other countries. In the US, we drive on roads. If you don't like it, move to Lisbon or Prague.

And building the Central Freeway wasn't a bad decision. It was a no-brainer.

I don't understand why you freeway haters think it's OK to have a 1 mile gap in a major artery that not only serves the neighborhood, not only the city, not only the county, not only the metro, not only the region, not only the state but the entire country just because you don't like looking at it. Oh, your poor little eyes are so mistreated having to look at that big mean bully freeway. My heart cries for you.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6077
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: November 18, 2019, 06:30:20 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #115 on: December 27, 2017, 06:46:52 PM »

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.

If these car haters get their way, it won't only be US 75 that is removed. As soon as it is gone they will descend like vultures and whine until they remove the Rogers, Stemmons and Thornton freeways from downtown Dallas. Talk about a dystopian traffic nightmare.

Have you car haters even taken into account the amount of pollution that these cars will emit sitting at traffic lights and putt putting through downtown at 30 MPH? Do you even think things like this through or do you just rely on your emotions?

Not to get too political, but when it comes to highways and guns, the Far Left acts like the Far Right acts about everything else. Emotion, emotion, emotion. No rationality whatsoever. Think with your brain, not your heart.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6077
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: November 18, 2019, 06:30:20 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #116 on: December 27, 2017, 07:05:23 PM »

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.

If you remove 75, all that traffic will be forced onto I-30/I-35E/TX 366. Those highways are already jammed with traffic as it is. How bad do you think it will be with all this extra traffic?

Like I said, you car haters don't think things through. You just act irrationally and emotionally.

I did think things through. Here are some cold, hard facts. In 2016, an average of 177,340 vehicles a day used US 75/I-345 between I-30 and TX 366. 218,840 vehicles used I-30 between I-45/US 75 and I-35E, 224,462 vehicles used I-35E between I-30 and TX 366 and 204,709 vehicles used TX 366 between I-35E and US 75. Add those 177,340 vehicles to the other three sides of the "downtown loop" and you have an absolute nightmare.

You would have to widen the N, S and W legs to 20 lanes each to handle the traffic. There simply isn't room for that many lanes.

I-345 doesn't split residential neighborhoods in half, There are few if any single-family homes inside the "downtown loop".

Numbers don't lie. Emotions do.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6077
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: November 18, 2019, 06:30:20 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #117 on: December 27, 2017, 07:32:59 PM »

By the way, "TXtoNJ", the 2016 traffic count on the I-345 section of US 75 is 182,863 just south of TX 366. Just to the north of TX 366 on US 75, the traffic count is 251,808. Your claim that I-345 is a "spur" is a lie of Trumpian proportions.

Another tidbit that hasn't been mentioned is that the ramp from westbound TX 366 to southbound I-35E is a single lane ramp. Oops. Like I said, you didn't think it through.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2017, 07:51:14 PM by bugo »
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6077
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: November 18, 2019, 06:30:20 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #118 on: December 27, 2017, 07:49:54 PM »

Here are the traffic counts in downtown Dallas. Note that traffic INCREASES on US 75 north of TX 366:

Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

TXtoNJ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 533
  • Last Login: November 17, 2019, 02:02:52 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #119 on: December 27, 2017, 08:27:02 PM »

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.

If you remove 75, all that traffic will be forced onto I-30/I-35E/TX 366. Those highways are already jammed with traffic as it is. How bad do you think it will be with all this extra traffic?

Like I said, you car haters don't think things through. You just act irrationally and emotionally.

I did think things through. Here are some cold, hard facts. In 2016, an average of 177,340 vehicles a day used US 75/I-345 between I-30 and TX 366. 218,840 vehicles used I-30 between I-45/US 75 and I-35E, 224,462 vehicles used I-35E between I-30 and TX 366 and 204,709 vehicles used TX 366 between I-35E and US 75. Add those 177,340 vehicles to the other three sides of the "downtown loop" and you have an absolute nightmare.

You would have to widen the N, S and W legs to 20 lanes each to handle the traffic. There simply isn't room for that many lanes.

I-345 doesn't split residential neighborhoods in half, There are few if any single-family homes inside the "downtown loop".

Numbers don't lie. Emotions do.

Whoo lord, the projection here.

I'm not against freeways, at all. Just this one.
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6077
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: November 18, 2019, 06:30:20 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #120 on: December 27, 2017, 09:03:57 PM »

Nobody has given a rational reason to tear down this freeway. It's all been emotionally charged excuses like "It's ugly" or "I don't like looking at it."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've seen on the ground and by looking at aerial maps, it doesn't appear that I-345/US 75 cut any neighborhoods in half. It appears to be a commercial district.

Again, give me a rational reason to remove this freeway. I, along with several others in this thread, have given many rational, logical reasons to leave it there. All I've heard is nonsense. Think with your brain, not your heart or gut.

Also, you didn't bother to refute my claims. I refuted yours and provided solid evidence. If I'm wrong tell me why I am. I have seen zero evidence that my stance is incorrect.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2268
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 09:14:32 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #121 on: December 28, 2017, 12:16:08 AM »

Here are the traffic counts in downtown Dallas. Note that traffic INCREASES on US 75 north of TX 366:



The line of thinking seems to be this: 366, 30, and 35E get more traffic than 345 does, therefore 345 doesnít need to exist. Complete BS.

TXtoNJís arguments seem to focus on the movement from I-35E to US 75 and vice versa. We canít forget the 45 to 75 movement...and originally, that was all US 75! Some people forget that 75 used to go south through Houston all the way to Galveston, as well as north. The only reason 75 doesnít go south from Dallas anymore is that it was replaced by I-45.
If you remove 345, you create a hole in a major north-south route, detouring all its traffic into roads that are already over capacity serving different movements.
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14 82 86ID 215UT 225 345 444 575 985
US clinches: 91 491 550

Flickr
Imgur

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6077
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: November 18, 2019, 06:30:20 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #122 on: December 28, 2017, 01:14:09 AM »

TXtoNJís arguments seem to focus on the movement from I-35E to US 75 and vice versa. We canít forget the 45 to 75 movement...and originally, that was all US 75! Some people forget that 75 used to go south through Houston all the way to Galveston, as well as north. The only reason 75 doesnít go south from Dallas anymore is that it was replaced by I-45.
If you remove 345, you create a hole in a major north-south route, detouring all its traffic into roads that are already over capacity serving different movements.

This guy gets it.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

TXtoNJ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 533
  • Last Login: November 17, 2019, 02:02:52 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #123 on: December 28, 2017, 09:43:32 AM »

Here are the traffic counts in downtown Dallas. Note that traffic INCREASES on US 75 north of TX 366:



The line of thinking seems to be this: 366, 30, and 35E get more traffic than 345 does, therefore 345 doesnít need to exist. Complete BS.

TXtoNJís arguments seem to focus on the movement from I-35E to US 75 and vice versa. We canít forget the 45 to 75 movement...and originally, that was all US 75! Some people forget that 75 used to go south through Houston all the way to Galveston, as well as north. The only reason 75 doesnít go south from Dallas anymore is that it was replaced by I-45.
If you remove 345, you create a hole in a major north-south route, detouring all its traffic into roads that are already over capacity serving different movements.

Very little traffic is going from Central to Schepps, and that traffic has other options (635, DNT, Loop 12).

If the reason you want to maintain this highway and continuing impacting a neighborhood like this is to maintain some sense of Platonic route continuity, then I'd say your priorities are very much out of order.

Quote
If I'm wrong tell me why I am. I have seen zero evidence that my stance is incorrect.

It's been provided several times in this thread. You're not going to give in on this one, though, because it seems to be ideological with you. You're basing things off a map instead of what people on the ground are telling you.

People want to live in a nice, pleasant city that's geared toward its residents. You want big urban freeways and to never give in to those who want something different. Why are you in the right here?
Logged

1

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 7327
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 10:18:33 AM
    • Flickr account
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #124 on: December 28, 2017, 09:48:07 AM »

Very little traffic is going from Central to Schepps

Do you have data to back up this claim?
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus
US ⒔50
MA ⒐2⒉40.9⒐10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚14⒈159
NH 27, 111A(E); NY 366; GA 42, 140; FL A1A; CT 32; VT 5A; QC 16⒉16⒌263

Flickr

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.