Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You guys can play blind-to-the-facts all you want but Dallas thrives in large measure because it is a transportation hub. Quelling that advantage in order to emulate cities that are very different would be a terrible error.
And of course there's the inescapable money issue. Even though maintaining the overhead is clearly the right thing to do economically until you guys are able to raise the $900 million spread between fixing the road and tearing it out you have no viable argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_
Anther thought would be that they do everything with more of an eye toward reality and less towards romance.
Basically, you guys have lost this one for several very hard reasons:
1. Traffic disruption - your side has made no decent attempt to explain where the displaced traffic would go.
2. Cost - simply removing the overhead and doing nothing would cost much more than fixing the overhead. Removing the overhead and replacing the capacity is unthinkably expensive.
3. You guys claiming that everyone else, those who disagree with you, the city, TXDot, authors of traffic engineering studies etc. are dumb does not help either.
The costs to remove were far cheaper than repair and replace (a temporary patch at best since it only extends the lifespan a couple of decades and still leaves TxDOT with the need to fund a major restructuring down the road). Ripping it out and re-stitching the grid would actually have resulted in 250 acres of development in downtown Dallas - an enormous boon to the area, billions of investment, and billions more in value improved value - and healing a divide the has lasted decades. These are real, tangible, and substantial returns to the community. Whereas the best TxDOT can offer is. . .exactly the same.
Honestly - this is better for us. TxDOT is already billions in the hole and every dollar spent on Dallas is a dollar they can't spend ruining Austin (more than they already have). But still - I feel for a city that came forward with a visionary proposal only to have it shut down in their face without even any real-consideration - never even having considered it as an option whatsoever. It is a lesson to us all that the TxDOT DOES NOT CARE about the cities. They have one charge and one charge only - move traffic. They do not worry about:
community
value
connectivity
access
health
safety
welfare
sprawl
Lesson to us all - TxDOT is a man with a hammer - all the world is a nail.
Where did you get that first part?
I read somewhere that simple removal and disposal costs would be at least $175 million. Repair $100 million. and remove and replace with a tunnel at least $1 billion.
And with respect the 250 acres would not be developed well by anyone if people there could only reliably travel by bicycle or on foot.
And in closing Austin is the perfect example of a city where population growth has outstripped its freeway system.
Where did you get that first part?
I read somewhere that simple removal and disposal costs would be at least $175 million. Repair $100 million. and remove and replace with a tunnel at least $1 billion.
And with respect the 250 acres would not be developed well by anyone if people there could only reliably travel by bicycle or on foot.
And in closing Austin is the perfect example of a city where population growth has outstripped its freeway system.
That is the comparable cost that has been done in other cities for comparable projects. There is no reason why it should be any more expensive in Dallas (other than TxDOT wants to load the dice against it).
Tunnel is completely unnecessary - stitch the grid back together - give local traffic many options instead of one - send through traffic around downtown instead of into it.
I can't understand what you even mean by the last sentence. 250 acres of prime land with incredible access to downtown land can be redeveloped and create a whole new walkable, bike-able vibrant urban neighborhood exactly where it would do the most good.
I am guessing the push for taking down the freeway is Boston's Big Dig. How much commercial development is happening in Boston that's a result of their tunnel? Is the tax base increasing enough to cover the costs of the demolition of their old freeway?
I am guessing the push for taking down the freeway is Boston's Big Dig. How much commercial development is happening in Boston that's a result of their tunnel? Is the tax base increasing enough to cover the costs of the demolition of their old freeway?
Actually, tearing down IH 345 was the cheapest option at $60-65 million, with an expected $4 billion in private development. TXDOT decided making $100 million in repairs that are only going to last 20 years, with no expected private investment was a better idea. Therefore, the area will continue to be blighted because it's next to an ugly highway.
People will ride DART (we do want increased ridership, right?), telecommute, or carpool.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously? That is what people are going to do?
No, it will just be more traffic everywhere else. On roads that are already too crowded. We are a metroplex of commuters. We don't have the public transportation options or the compact city space others that have done away with highways like these do.
By the way, it's not just suburbanites...I used this stretch of highway ALL THE TIME when I lived in Dallas.
Consider this: (particularly the land area, population density, and costs...)
Quote:
According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 385.8 square miles (999.3 km2), 340.5 square miles (881.9 km2) of it being land and 45.3 square miles (117.4 km2) of it (11.75%) water.[17] Dallas makes up one-fifth of the much larger urbanized area known as the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex, in which one quarter of all Texans live.
Quote:
The City of Vancouver encompasses a land area of about 114 square kilometres, giving it a population density of about 5,249 people per square kilometre (13,590 per square mile). Vancouver is the most densely populated Canadian municipality, and the fourth most densely populated city over 250,000 residents in North America
Quote:
The Big Dig was the most expensive highway project in the U.S. and was plagued by escalating costs, scheduling overruns, leaks, design flaws, charges of poor execution and use of substandard materials, criminal arrests,[2][3] and one death.[4] The project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1998[5] at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006).[6] However, the project was completed only in December 2007, at a cost of over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982 dollars, meaning a cost overrun of about 190%)[6] as of 2006.[7]The Boston Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it will not be paid off until 2038
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously? That is what people are going to do?
No, it will just be more traffic everywhere else. On roads that are already too crowded. We are a metroplex of commuters. We don't have the public transportation options or the compact city space others that have done away with highways like these do.
The exits and entrances are horribly planned and it's normally easier and less stressful to drive through downtown and take Woodall Rodgers to merge onto 75. The commuters could easily exit Cesar Chavez, Pearl, or Hall to get where they are going. That would only add minutes to a commute (how horrible). Regional traffic not destined for downtown should not be routed in that direction in the first place.
Quote:
The grid of surface streets that runs from downtown through East Dallas has the capacity to handle more cars. Examining traffic counts of the primary arterials in near East Dallas, I found that they can accommodate an additional 252,000 cars per day, well above what IH-345 moves
By the way, it's not just suburbanites...I used this stretch of highway ALL THE TIME when I lived in Dallas.
I only use IH 345 several times a year on my way to Houston, and don't know a single person in Dallas who uses it regularly. I drive under it pretty often though. It's just not accessible, in fact I think one exit is closed right now, and no one seems to be complaining.
I wouldn't miss it at all. I think the 6 million plus in the Dallas metro would benefit far greater from a thriving downtown Dallas, than the 160,000 having a few minutes shaved off their commutes.
The exits and entrances are horribly planned and it's normally easier and less stressful to drive through downtown and take Woodall Rodgers to merge onto 75. The commuters could easily exit Cesar Chavez, Pearl, or Hall to get where they are going. That would only add minutes to a commute (how horrible). Regional traffic not destined for downtown should not be routed in that direction in the first place.
I only use IH 345 several times a year on my way to Houston, and don't know a single person in Dallas who uses it regularly. I drive under it pretty often though. It's just not accessible, in fact I think one exit is closed right now, and no one seems to be complaining.
I wouldn't miss it at all. I think the 6 million plus in the Dallas metro would benefit far greater from a thriving downtown Dallas, than the 160,000 having a few minutes shaved off their commutes.
Sorry to butt in but some of the arguments from the "tear it down" crowd are tiresome, bordering on group dishonesty.
1. I-345 wasn't horribly planned. It was drawn out in the '60s and designed to handle 35/40K cars per day. It handles 4x that now and more. The ramps are sub-standard by today's guidelines but they simply were not poorly planned.
2. Claiming the untold tens of thousands of net new cars forced into downtown traffic would only add a few minutes to a cross town commute is raw fantasy. I also think it's an epic reach to claim that crossing downtown now is only a little more time consuming that using the freeway.
3. Patrick Kennedy is 1/2 of the problem you guys have. I'm sure he is a nice man personally but he claims tearing the freeway out would cost $80/85 million more or less, not $60 million as you mentioned earlier FWiiW. However, a good friend of mine is a civil engineer in St. Louis he texted me last night that the current expected costs for removing and properly disposing of an existing freeway that size are right at $100,000,000 per mile. With a wave of his hand he dismisses traffic dislocation and compares what Dallas should be to cities that are nothing like Dallas and have vastly worse traffic FWiiW. I'll be generous and call PK's arguments incomplete at best.
Viscerally, I love the idea of removing I-345 and turning the reclaimed land into apartments, condos, grocery stores and a school or two would be wonderful. The problem is things like that don't happen in a vacuum. The displaced cars your guys write off as a trivial factor would in fact be a huge problem - a problem so big it would be damaging to the economy.
I don't take Kennedy and some others who are against most every road project very seriously. What if instead he had years ago drawn up a plan that rerouted most I-345 traffic through an even beefier Horseshoe project, maybe double decking Woodall Rogers and portions of I-35, maybe then killing I-345 would make sense.
The best course of action now is to formulate a real top to bottom plan to get rid of 345 in 20/25 years.
Also Kennedy talks about SF tearing out the Embarcadero Freeway and how that hasn't been a problem for SF. I go there a lot and know the city fairly well.
I don't have numbers but the Embarcadero never carried close to the traffic that I-345 carries. Secondly, it's not like they tore out the freeway and left. The freeway was removed and replaced with a six lane surface street.
ETA - I found some numbers the Embarcadero Freeway carried about 1/3, probably fewer, cars daily that I-345.
I was at first down on this idea. But I think it is a good one.
Dallasites should go talk to NTTA about making that a Toll Tunnel like Addison. That is the only way to get it done. Add in a DART line on it as well.
Can be done. But the money side needs some more imagination.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This has all been discussed
