Dallas IH 345 study RFQ

[Duke87]

This is the consequence I don't think many of the anti-freeway folks who like Deep Ellum are considering at all. Deep Ellum has absolutely no monopoly at all on places where to socialize, eat, drink, etc in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. There's places all over the Metroplex where people can do that. Make it a royal pain in the ass for visitors to get in and out of Deep Ellum and you'll see a lot less visitors frequenting that area.

I don't see how removing 345 would have any significant impact on the difficulty of getting to Deep Ellum specifically, since anyone going there is exiting the freeway network there already anyway.

I also would therefore expect any removal to increase, not decrease, the value of nearby real estate, because of the reduced noise and improved aesthetics.

The losers in this scenario are the people just passing through, who will suddenly lack a good means of doing so.

[bugo]

Try again. Start with the CityMAP data that J N Winkler so graciously provided again. And actually visit Deep Ellum so you can see just how wrong you are about the land use.

I have been to Deep Ellum before. There are no single family homes close to the highway.

[bugo]

I keep hearing how I-345 "cuts through a neighborhood". Correct me if I'm wrong, but judging from aerial photographs, there are no houses close to I-345, just commercial and/or industrial buildings.

The vast majority of buildings in your aerial photo are residential.

Apartment buildings?

[Bobby5280]

Yeah. It looks like luxury apartments and condos. Look at historical imagery in Google Earth. Most of that stuff didn't exist in the year 2000. A lot of it is fairly new. Getting rid of the I-345 freeway would open space for building even more of the luxury condo stuff.

[Perfxion]

So they built luxury apartments next to a 30+ year old freeway and now want the freeway removed because it cuts off the neighborhood? That makes as much sense as a church building next to a strip club then complaining to the city that the strip club is too close to the church.

[Bobby5280]

Some little churches built in metal industrial buildings and the like have been strategically built near bars and topless joints as a ploy to get them shut down. Some cities and towns in the bible belt have had ordinances against bars and strip clubs operating within a certain distance of a church. If the existing bar or strip club has some incident where the town can suspend its liquor license the license would end up suspended permanently.

Likewise, these luxury condos near downtown Dallas and Deep Ellum are built with a somewhat similar ploy, but in a more slippery, sneaky way. The real estate developers get on the side of the New Urbanists who hate freeways and dream of trans-continental bike paths. They adopt the New Urbanist talking points and help the cause because it ultimately aids their goal of getting their hands on a whole lot of land formerly occupied by a freeway. Meanwhile the real estate guys and anti-freeway folks hope everyone else doesn't remember the I-345 freeway was there first, leap-frogging what used to be the ass-end of downtown Dallas. They also hope no one realizes the thing going on with the condo development is gentrification. Once the I-345 freeway is removed and swallowed up with high priced condo buildings the Deep Ellum neighborhood can be transformed from being a night life party zone to a place where you need to have a good suit and maybe be white in order to hang out there.

[sparker]

So they built luxury apartments next to a 30+ year old freeway and now want the freeway removed because it cuts off the neighborhood? That makes as much sense as a church building next to a strip club then complaining to the city that the strip club is too close to the church.

Some little churches built in metal industrial buildings and the like have been strategically built near bars and topless joints as a ploy to get them shut down. Some cities and towns in the bible belt have had ordinances against bars and strip clubs operating within a certain distance of a church. If the existing bar or strip club has some incident where the town can suspend its liquor license the license would end up suspended permanently.

Likewise, these luxury condos near downtown Dallas and Deep Ellum are built with a somewhat similar ploy, but in a more slippery, sneaky way. The real estate developers get on the side of the New Urbanists who hate freeways and dream of trans-continental bike paths. They adopt the New Urbanist talking points and help the cause because it ultimately aids their goal of getting their hands on a whole lot of land formerly occupied by a freeway. Meanwhile the real estate guys and anti-freeway folks hope everyone else doesn't remember the I-345 freeway was there first, leap-frogging what used to be the ass-end of downtown Dallas. They also hope no one realizes the thing going on with the condo development is gentrification. Once the I-345 freeway is removed and swallowed up with high priced condo buildings the Deep Ellum neighborhood can be transformed from being a night life party zone to a place where you need to have a good suit and maybe be white in order to hang out there.

Actually, that happened in Corona, CA in the late '90's; an Anaheim strip club looking to relocate to Corona, tentatively secured a location in an industrial strip near the CA 91/CA 71 junction in Corona near Prado Dam.  When a local church (of the fundamentalist/evangelical sort) got wind of this, they very quickly -- like within a month -- leased out three units next to where the strip club intended to move and moved their facility (which had been in a similar facility in central Corona) to that location and immediately petitioned the Corona zoning commission to deny permission for the club -- which was granted in short order.  The club ended up moving to another place along the 91 freeway in east Anaheim.  Heard about this from the club owner; once moved, my company converted their main raised stage into a series of subwoofer enclosures! 

But that's not a new tactic; with city zoning ordinances as they are, it's relatively easy for a city -- or developers (or other entities) with connections to city government -- to make efforts to tailor the urban environment to their own advantage.  Unfortunately, many city planners tacitly encourage gentrification; they see that as a viable way to ensure that tax dollars (property & sales) keep accruing to the city, particularly as expenses rise; in some jurisdictions, it has become a vicious cycle!     

[TXtoNJ]

Try again. Start with the CityMAP data that J N Winkler so graciously provided again. And actually visit Deep Ellum so you can see just how wrong you are about the land use.

I have been to Deep Ellum before. There are no single family homes close to the highway.

Moving the goalposts.

[bugo]

Moving the goalposts.

If anybody is moving anything, it isn't me. I've proven you wrong on about a dozen points. Are you going to admit you were wrong?

[TXtoNJ]

Moving the goalposts.

If anybody is moving anything, it isn't me. I've proven you wrong on about a dozen points. Are you going to admit you were wrong?

Haven't proven me wrong on a thing. I've pointed you to good information, but you can lead a horse to water...

Truth is, we prioritize different things. You want big freeways, fast speeds, neighborhoods be damned. I want interesting neighborhoods, and then fast freeways outside of those neighborhoods. I think my way of looking at it is a bit more accommodating to different kinds of people. You seem to think that different kinds of people shouldn't have their opinions recognized at all. So it goes.

[hotdogPi]

Moving the goalposts.

If anybody is moving anything, it isn't me. I've proven you wrong on about a dozen points. Are you going to admit you were wrong?

Haven't proven me wrong on a thing. I've pointed you to good information, but you can lead a horse to water...

Replies #129 (by bugo, about cutting through a residential neighborhood) and #133 (by kphoger, about how much traffic goes through downtown).

[TXtoNJ]

Moving the goalposts.

If anybody is moving anything, it isn't me. I've proven you wrong on about a dozen points. Are you going to admit you were wrong?

Haven't proven me wrong on a thing. I've pointed you to good information, but you can lead a horse to water...

Replies #129 (by bugo, about cutting through a residential neighborhood) and #133 (by kphoger, about how much traffic goes through downtown).

Nope. 129 - there are plenty of apartments around there, they count. Mixed use prior to freeway construction, too.

133 - I said that most traffic ends up downtown, and that downtown plus out-of-town traffic far outweighs traffic using it for suburb-to-suburb travel. Nothing he posted contradicted it.

[kphoger]

while most trips originating on either US-75 or I-45 do indeed have a local destination, the northbound morning rush is a clear counterexample; more traffic continues through downtown on I-345 than uses it to reach a local destination.

I said that most traffic ends up downtown, and that downtown plus out-of-town traffic far outweighs traffic using it for suburb-to-suburb travel.

How is this not a contradiction?
25% local
38% through

[TXtoNJ]

while most trips originating on either US-75 or I-45 do indeed have a local destination, the northbound morning rush is a clear counterexample; more traffic continues through downtown on I-345 than uses it to reach a local destination.

I said that most traffic ends up downtown, and that downtown plus out-of-town traffic far outweighs traffic using it for suburb-to-suburb travel.

How is this not a contradiction?
25% local
38% through

Because it's one direction out of many, and because of the way Dallas' population is arranged. There's far more traffic coming from the north and west than the south and east.

[kphoger]

So the people driving suburb-to-suburb in the morning along the 45—345—75 corridor might as well not exist because it's only one direction?

[kphoger]

I think the issue is that you're saying "most" to mean absolute numbers, but I've been citing percentages.  Without knowing how many vehicles traveled in each direction during the AM and PM peaks, I'm not sure how we can accurately figure how many total vehicles went where.

[TXtoNJ]

I think the issue is that you're saying "most" to mean absolute numbers, but I've been citing percentages.  Without knowing how many vehicles traveled in each direction during the AM and PM peaks, I'm not sure how we can accurately figure how many total vehicles went where.

Not trying to be trite here, but compare development on Schepps (45S) to Central Expressway (75N):

https://goo.gl/maps/YNfEXjwNQzt

It's an order of magnitude difference.

[kphoger]

I think the issue is that you're saying "most" to mean absolute numbers, but I've been citing percentages.  Without knowing how many vehicles traveled in each direction during the AM and PM peaks, I'm not sure how we can accurately figure how many total vehicles went where.

Not trying to be trite here, but compare development on Schepps (45S) to Central Expressway (75N):

https://goo.gl/maps/YNfEXjwNQzt

It's an order of magnitude difference.

Oh, I get that.  I just wish we had actual numbers.  I was going to make a chart, and then I realized I was missing a huge part of the equations.

[bugo]

Moving the goalposts.

If anybody is moving anything, it isn't me. I've proven you wrong on about a dozen points. Are you going to admit you were wrong?

Haven't proven me wrong on a thing. I've pointed you to good information, but you can lead a horse to water...

Truth is, we prioritize different things. You want big freeways, fast speeds, neighborhoods be damned. I want interesting neighborhoods, and then fast freeways outside of those neighborhoods. I think my way of looking at it is a bit more accommodating to different kinds of people. You seem to think that different kinds of people shouldn't have their opinions recognized at all. So it goes.

No, you want to not have to look at a big ugly freeway, 175,000 commuters a day be damned.

[TXtoNJ]

Moving the goalposts.

If anybody is moving anything, it isn't me. I've proven you wrong on about a dozen points. Are you going to admit you were wrong?

Haven't proven me wrong on a thing. I've pointed you to good information, but you can lead a horse to water...

Truth is, we prioritize different things. You want big freeways, fast speeds, neighborhoods be damned. I want interesting neighborhoods, and then fast freeways outside of those neighborhoods. I think my way of looking at it is a bit more accommodating to different kinds of people. You seem to think that different kinds of people shouldn't have their opinions recognized at all. So it goes.

No, you want to not have to look at a big ugly freeway, 175,000 commuters a day be damned.

So you admit it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

[kphoger]

No, you want to not have to look at a big ugly freeway, 175,000 commuters a day be damned.

So you admit it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

No, he admitted that you think it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

[TXtoNJ]

No, you want to not have to look at a big ugly freeway, 175,000 commuters a day be damned.

So you admit it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

No, he admitted that you think it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

Nope, he's the one who called it a "big ugly freeway". I said nothing of the sort.

My criticism of the structure has more to do with how it disrupts street-level connectivity, not so much visual impact.

[sparker]

No, you want to not have to look at a big ugly freeway, 175,000 commuters a day be damned.

So you admit it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

No, he admitted that you think it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

Wow -- now that the principal issue has been identified as visual blight and/or connectivity, that would seem to turn the tables toward a below-grade alternative and not necessarily a teardown effort.  The only reason for complete removal would be to satisfy those who don't like the general idea of urban freeway connectors.  And that in itself is no reason to needlessly detour 175K drivers per day just to placate a few ideologically-motivated souls.  The overall concept of the "greater good" seems to have been misplaced here -- and replaced by a "faction vs. faction" approach that, frankly, more often leads to impasse than solution.  I, for one, hate to see discourse come down to that!

[kphoger]

No, you want to not have to look at a big ugly freeway, 175,000 commuters a day be damned.

So you admit it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

No, he admitted that you think it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

Nope, he's the one who called it a "big ugly freeway".

He used those words.  That isn't the same thing as saying that's what he thinks it is.  And you know that.  But even if bugo does think it's a "big ugly freeway", there's still a divide between not wanting to look at it every day and being OK with looking at it every day.  A person can think the I-135 canal route through Wichita is a "big ugly freeway", but that's not at all the same thing as thinking the highway should be torn down because of it.

I said nothing of the sort.

My criticism of the structure has more to do with how it disrupts street-level connectivity, not so much visual impact.

You must admit, the language you chose in writing the quote below makes it sound an awful lot like you think I-345 is a "big ugly freeway."

ten-lane strips of concrete tearing their center cities apart.

[compdude787]

No, you want to not have to look at a big ugly freeway, 175,000 commuters a day be damned.

So you admit it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

No, he admitted that you think it's a visual blight on the surrounding area.

Nope, he's the one who called it a "big ugly freeway". I said nothing of the sort.

My criticism of the structure has more to do with how it disrupts street-level connectivity, not so much visual impact.

What? How on earth does it "disrupt street-level connectivity" if it's an elevated freeway? Your arguments make no sense whatsoever.