Does your city have any highways that can be removed?

[mhays25]

I actively supported it as an equal replacement to the existing bypass (basically the existing tunnel). Even wrote blogs for the local business daily. I'd have opposed a version with a capacity increase...the point was to continue to have a second freeway while focusing growth on transit, biking, and walking.

That wasn't just about not adding to local traffic and car focus. Also three lanes each way would almost certainly have been an exponential increase in cost and general difficulty.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

Yes, from what I've read, it will be co-signed with 10 from the North Freeway to the Eastex Freeway, and co-signed with 59 from the East Freeway to the Gulf Freeway

Kind of - 45 and 59/69 will still be two completely separate roadways in the same right of way in that section. They're going to widen and slightly reroute the trench where 59 currently passes through downtown to allow 45 to be built basically inside of it (which will include some real logistics challenges to be able to fit the loading dock of the GRB over the freeway). Through downtown, I believe that the entire thing will be something like 9-11 lanes of traffic each way (59/69 will be four, 45 will be three, plus 2-4 HOT lanes).

Personally, I like it from a land use perspective, but think it will do close to nothing from a traffic perspective. Basically a multi-billion dollar sop for developers in my view.

Originally Posted by annie_himself

There's good to hear. A green way on 45 itself would be pretty cool. Something like NYCs high line?

That's exactly the idea. I don't think it has a lot of momentum behind it at this point in time though - as far as I know the state hasn't decided what it will do with the Pierce ROW yet. However, I'd be willing to bet they will simply want to sell it to the highest bidder or the city if they come up with some plans to use the corridor.

I'm on the fence about it but either outcome whether its a Pierce Skypark or new development connecting downtown and uptown is much better than what's currently there.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

I commented on the 345 removal in the 2nd post. I think it's a horrible idea, as the 45 to 75 traffic won't go away, it will just go on to 30 to 35E to 366, which will bottleneck all three around Downtown

For the Dallas case, I agree with you, but this argument is more complex than most for a number of reasons, the foremost being the regional relationship between Dallas and its suburbs. Put succinctly, I think that removing 345 would be beneficial for the City of Dallas short term, but damaging for DFW as a whole long term. Here's why.

DFW's economic underpinning is primarily transportation and logistics. The region itself is economically diverse, but a primary reason that the area has grown so much over a long period of time is because of ease of transportation both in and around the area. One of the reasons I believe that DFW has a long-term competitive advantage over its economic rivals like Chicago and Atlanta is because of its superior freeway and railway system. And before it is mentioned, yes, public transportation systems (which arguably both Chicago and Atlanta have better of) is important. However, these systems only transport people. The flow of freight both intra- and interregionally is more important long term for places like Chicago, Atlanta, and DFW.

Now, I for one am not buying that the removal of 345 will result in no net increase in traffic congestion. But even if I were to accept that conclusion, this doesn't look into the question of how removing 345 will affect both intra- and interregional freight movements, as well as how not having that link long-term will affect the desirability of the DFW region to both new and relocating companies that are interested in logistics, (which is most of them in some way, shape or form).

Dallas itself may indeed benefit for a while from removing 345 through increased construction and investment in that area of town, and there is spare surface road capacity that could be used by commuters who need to move north to south on the eastern side of downtown. But I don't think any business that values the expansive DFW highway system and convenience and lower travel times/costs that go along with that will look kindly upon removing 345, nor do I think the city necessarily "needs" to do it to secure its future as a relevant city. Dallas (the city) is doing just fine with it there and getting better everyday. It's planning on adding more public transit to downtown and has been doing so. The area east of 345 is still growing regardless of the presence of the freeway.

Quite honestly, I think the crux of the push to remove the freeway is moreso so city leaders can appeal to millennials and those that it thinks want things like this for urbanity purposes. (i.e. "Look, we're making ourselves more urban by removing that freeway like SF did!") I'm a millennial (albeit, on the older end of the scale) and I think it's nonsense personally. If it's a visual effects thing, bury it, throw a park over it and call it a day. Removing it seems short-sighted in my view. The powers that be say it won't change a thing traffic-wise, but I don't believe that for a minute. The majority of that traffic will have to traverse the horseshoe or 635, neither of which is underutilized currently. Traffic doesn't just "disappear" as much as some would have you believe otherwise.

[missionhill]

Originally Posted by bluescreen73

There will likely never be another project like the Big Dig in the US (thank god). That project was the poster child for mismanagement, shoddy quality, and corruption. The $2.6 billion budget ballooned to over $15 billion and the project was finished 8 years behind schedule.

Whether huge cost overruns were due to political realities ( different Democratic and Republican gubernatorial admins) and things not anticipated or to mismanagement and corruption are debatable. Mismanagement probably— they gave construction management to a firm connected with Reagan and republican politics to have better chance of recovering costs from feds, for example. Its not shoddy overall. Even with cost overruns it’s an impressive achievement and repairs some of the damage caused by building the elevated artery. The public spaces in the surface are pretty good. The tunnel thru South Boston to the airport and silver line busway enabled the whole Seaport development. There are many collateral benefits.