Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Tearing Out Freeways: A Third Option

Alternative Planning

  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#1 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,555 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 30 January 2013 - 08:47 AM

From D Magazine

 

I-345 (Central Expressway connector) in Dallas is old and needs to be repaired, replaced, or ? The writer, planner Patrick Kennedy suggests tearing it out and rebuilding the urban grid in that area.

 

http://www.dmagazine...Investment.aspx



#2 mmmdan

mmmdan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridglea Hills

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:38 AM

He has a blog, www.carfreeinbigd.com, where he's been talking about this for a while.

 

An interesting note is that the highway system was not originally intended to actually enter the center of cities.  They were supposed to be a way to get people between cities, not the main way to drive through them.



#3 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,555 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 31 January 2013 - 11:21 AM

An interesting note is that the highway system was not originally intended to actually enter the center of cities.  They were supposed to be a way to get people between cities, not the main way to drive through them.

 

Agree absolutely. The idea for the INTERSTATE system was lifted from Hitler's Autobahn, intended to facilitate quick movement of military resources between two fronts and observed first-hand by Eisenhower while a general. The US political system allowed the initial system design for connecting highways between cities to become pork projects of powerful senators and congressmen to bring superhighways to their state's cities. This was fueled in large part by influence ($) from automobile, tire, and fuel manufacturers. The routes for the new expressways had to displace something, so in most cases they were pushed through lower-income neighborhoods where the residents had little political power to resist them. The result of the radiating highway patters was urban flight and the growth of suburban sprawl. Together with the urban renewal craze of the 1960's this resulted in the near destruction of US urban centers. 

 

I think it is also interesting that Fort Worth has a history of resisting the urban expressway trend years back when the southwest expressway (now Chisholm Trail Parkway) was first being discussed. One of the preferred plans by transportation planners and city leaders included a link from right at Forest Park Blvd that led the freeway along the Trinity River around the northern part of downtown and connected with I-35W where SH-121 and Belknap/Weatherford Streets meet. This would have paved over lots of open space including city parks and completely wrapped downtown with freeways. That part of the plan was rejected eventually. I will leave it to someone else to comment on why and how this happened, and what considerations were most important in making the decision.



#4 Joshw

Joshw

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Location:North Fort Worth

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:52 AM

I would say, at least we got 30 out of downtown, sorta. It's still basically a effective line drawn in the sad of Southside and downtown, despite most people I know still refer to the hospital district as part of downtown and don't say downtown ends until Magnolia.

 

I'm supportive of Patrick's initiative of getting I-345 out of Dallas. That would blow their development in downtown wide open, and help the urban development they've been talking the past 10-15 years about. I've talked with other urban developers from Dallas, and they are supportive of it as well, one especially supportive if they can get some low cost/private supported apartments built. (not to build slums apartments, but build apartments with a time limit to live there so that the people have to get back on their feet then move out...pretty interesting idea, not sure if it's been done before) The basic idea of that particular developer, was that they want more than just rich young professionals buying and living in Deep Ellum/Downtown. They want everyone down there.



#5 bfg9000d

bfg9000d

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 79 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 01:01 PM

Patrick's idea is that you can defreeway and area, turn it into a grid or street level or whatever and solve everything, In reality that's not an answer to the problem. That's just creating a brand new set of problems to deal with. One of which being a major increase in the amount of traffic lights and increase in pollution from stop and go traffic also bottle necking would result from the lights. I majorly support mass transit, rail, bus, streetcar, but we would need to majorly increase are mass transit and make all of it 24 hours to make things really work correctly. Also improve our point to point destinations, so that we don't have to walk a country mile to get somewhere when we finally do get off that mass transit. Offering a full range of point to point mass transit would dramatically reduce the overall amount of traffic in the area. The street car system that Dallas has is in the early stages, but its a step in the right direction and dart light rail is providing the branch out from there, which helps of course.

 

 

Freeways get a bad wrap, but most of there bad wrap comes from poor implementation and underdevelopment in the traffic that it supports and the adjacent freeway for what it supports and the traffic coming onto it. The better answer is somewhere in the middle. Traffic lights has been one of the greatest problems in regards to interrupting traffics free flow. Elimination of most traffic lights and more over unders on the outer parts of downtown. Would allow traffic to free flow around and would decrease traffic overall, all the while having direct access pedestrian crossovers on major thoroughfares, so there is no need to have to press the button on the light and wait forever in a day to get the crossing light.

 

 

You can have freeways all around you and still have a very walkable connected city. Yep that’s correct. The problem has always been through the years is that poor implementation of pedestrian features, has made freeways become concrete barriers plain and simple. Which has produce the many negative feelings that people have towards freeways, such as Patrick is having in regards to pedestrian walk-ability. With proper implementation of pedestrian features, you can make the entire freeway system around you walkable, seamless, and urban development follow as well. Having multi point pedestrian access. Such as providing covered outdoor escalators for you to get across major streets and active freeways would solve most gripes. If the freeway is aerial. Then close out particular streets to make crossing seamless or add safe quick direct pedestrian access underneath the elevated freeway to ensure fast access to both sides. Also restricting the amount of on ramps and exits would confine most traffic to certain areas and would prevent allot of cutting through what would be quiet streets. Providing Automated Parking Garages. Would free up allot of space as well and would allow for more development. Most trenched freeways, require that you cross and active surface street before you are able to cross over the freeway. To solve this problem, make multiple direct pedestrian access points from which to cross over the freeway from, without having to contend with surface street traffic. Most current pedestrian featured crossings today are out of date, built insanely to high up, or are highly limited and hard to access and our down right ugly looking, but they don't have to be. The epidemic is that allot of cities, have mentally lock on working on walk-ability in conjunction of a active freeway and major thoroughfares. So it remains a concrete barrier and is generally why development stops at the freeway and resumes again further down. Some cities have very small segments of implementation of what I have been talking about. The areas that have done it, people love it and urban development continues on.

 

In regards to 345 it would be better to either send 345 into a tunnel, and or realign it so that it curves outward instead of inward. You could also trench 345 as well. Regardless there are many points along 345 and many other areas along downtown Dallas freeways where direct pedestrian access is non existent or very loosely done and dangerous.



#6 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,427 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 03 February 2013 - 03:00 PM

Several years ago we visited our Son and his wife in Amarillo.  We took 287 through Witcha Falls and was suprised that Highway 287 went "over" the downtown area.  Below the were city streets  unaffected by heavy  highway through traffic.  I-30 does this overhead thing in downtown Fort Worth. 


Dave still at

360texas45x145.png
Visit 360texas.com


#7 Joshw

Joshw

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Location:North Fort Worth

Posted 04 February 2013 - 09:15 AM

bfg9000d

That being said, how are other cities doing this and seeing amazing growth, little to no expect traffic issues as you said, and economic impact that stays in the city? See San Francisco and St. Louis. I believe Portland has done this as well, and there are others in the US that are looking to do this as well. I understand what you are saying, but why spend 3 or 4 times the amount to fix that bridge, when you can spend 1/3 of that to pull it down, then in 5-15 years see tax revenue that makes your money back and more? 

 

Besides, it's likely people are going to Woodall Rogers, rather than into downtown. I can definitely see people going into Downtown, but it's likely they'll just go to Woodall Rogers. Since more traffic will go that way, they'll obviously expand that exit where it flows more rather than bottle-necks because of continuing onto 30, as it does now.



#8 bfg9000d

bfg9000d

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 79 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 04:03 PM

Well the main concern is how many people will be affected by tearing down 345 or even the people wanting to tear down Central, whats the alternative to allow free flow of traffic. Allot of people show no concern at all about a particular stretch unless it directly affects them. There has to be compromise.. Sending 345 into a tunnel, maybe the solution. Which accomplishes both things wanted. It may well be worth getting the NTTA involved and seeing what they could present. Most ultra modern pedestrian features are not in the US. Most of the ultra modern pedestrian features, I'm talking about, you will find on the other side of the globe. I think 360texas understood the idea better.  We are not San Fran, St Louis or Portland. I have visited all those cities many times and know people who live in those cities. Dallas shouldn't model itself after any of those cities. We need to be uniquely Dallas and find better alternatives, and thinking outside the mold of everybody else. That's what will ultimately make us uniquely Dallas. If we found a different way and accomplished the same goal. That's ultimately what will make us different. Not just another molded, dog on a leash type city.



#9 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,555 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 06 February 2013 - 02:03 AM

Interview summary with Peter Park, former Milwaukee and current Denver City Planning Director on removing Milwaukee's Park East Freeway, now replaced with McKinley Blvd just north of Downtown. Several links in the article to take the reader to relevant and related information about the plan.

 

http://www.cnu.org/c...view-peter-park



#10 Joshw

Joshw

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Location:North Fort Worth

Posted 06 February 2013 - 09:50 AM

Great link RD.

 

Don't want to continue this, bfg9000d, but if the highway choking city that Dallas is, is what Dallas is, then that's a sad thing indeed. And it'll continue to not be inviting to anyone but who is already here as other cities do things that attract the young professionals.



#11 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,555 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 01 June 2013 - 12:22 AM

Update from the Dallas Morning News:

 

http://www.dallasnew...all-rodgers.ece



#12 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 01 June 2013 - 06:31 PM

I think the best solution is to turn I-345 into a tunnel with a park overhead, just like they did with Woodall Rogers. Anyone suggesting that we remove the freeway has absolutely no idea of the magnitude of traffic on it. Milwaukee's Park east freeway, San Francisco's central freeway and Portland's Harbor drive (the examples of freeway removals that were mentioned on here) were all short freeway spurs that detoured from another larger freeway and were barely traveled. They weren't highly travelled freeways that connected different parts of the city like I-345 does. If we were to remove 345, pollution would skyrocket because there would be much more idling and traffic backups than there are now. All that traffic has to go somewhere. Either it would be diverted to I-35E, making it an even bigger traffic disaster, and/or it would turn eastern downtown into an absolute mess clogged with NYC-type traffic.

 

Sorry y'all, I had to bring some common sense into this thread.

________________

 

Side note to Joshw, Saint Louis hasn't had a freeway removed; it's being proposed.


- Dylan


#13 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,438 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 01 June 2013 - 09:30 PM

Converting an elevated freeway to a tunneled freeway would likely be cost prohibitive. The WR deck park was relatively inexpensive because they simply put a roof over an already completed sunken freeway.

I believe the idea is that I-345 would not be removed until the horseshoe reconstruction project is complete. I don't think it's a crazy assumption to think that an interchange that's 20 lanes wide at some points could absorb additional traffic diverted from the closed freeway.

#14 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 01 June 2013 - 10:07 PM

Converting an elevated freeway to a tunneled freeway would likely be cost prohibitive. The WR deck park was relatively inexpensive because they simply put a roof over an already completed sunken freeway.

I believe the idea is that I-345 would not be removed until the horseshoe reconstruction project is complete. I don't think it's a crazy assumption to think that an interchange that's 20 lanes wide at some points could absorb additional traffic diverted from the closed freeway.

 

It's only going to be 20 lanes wide on a very small portion of the project where 30 and 35E are side-by-side. The rest of 35E, as well as Woodall Rodgers and 30, won't be able to absorb the extra traffic. They can barely handle the traffic they have during rush hour now. Plus, that will triple the distance of those going north from the end of 45 to the start of 75 and vice-versa because they would have to make a "U" shape around downtown.

 

The plan to remove the freeway is a very poorly thought out plan.


- Dylan


#15 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside
  • Interests:Writing, music, photography, games, sci-fi.

Posted 03 June 2013 - 12:03 PM

I'm in favor of removing the freeway and I hope it comes to fruition.  I've followed the plan's creation for a long while in private - it's been very thoroughly thought out and I fully support Patrick & co.'s vision.


- Architecture/urban planning/transit blogger, Fort Worth Weekly

Fort Worth District 9 Zoning Commissioner


#16 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,302 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 04 June 2013 - 08:34 AM

I'm really having trouble envisioning where the traffic would go.  So, if I'm driving from Ennis to 75 & LBJ, where would I go?  Maybe I'm not looking at the right road on Google Earth?



#17 hannerhan

hannerhan

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts
  • Location:Ft Worth

Posted 04 June 2013 - 11:06 AM

I'm really having trouble envisioning where the traffic would go.  So, if I'm driving from Ennis to 75 & LBJ, where would I go?  Maybe I'm not looking at the right road on Google Earth?

 

I believe you'd get routed on to I-30 Westbound and then I-35 Stemmons and then Woodall Rogers before connecting to 75.

 

I don't see how the complete demo of that stretch of freeway works at all from a traffic perspective.  On the other hand, perhaps it would be possible to reduce the footprint by just putting two lanes in each direction of "through traffic" in there so they could get rid of all the clover leaf exits and much of the structure of the overhead road.  Seems like that would be a decent compromise.

 

If they did take out the whole thing, a wreck on Stemmons or Woodall Rogers would literally paralyze traffic for miles in every direction.  Not a good idea.



#18 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,555 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 04 June 2013 - 06:03 PM

Why not just tear down the overhead and put in a large boulevard with timed lights that would allow thru-traffic to move through the area in pulses. Most large cities in the works outside of North America don't have expressways running right down through the middle of the city; they have people and businesses and parks and jobs and apartments... 

 

It might be possible to find a Spanish (or French or German) company to come over and build a 4-lane express toll tunnel under that boulevard connecting N. Central to I-45. They could collect tolls for 50 or 60 years before it reverts... NAW, that would never work. 



#19 Russ Graham

Russ Graham

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Ft Worth

Posted 06 August 2014 - 02:41 AM

http://www.theguardi...texas-city-walk

Another thoroughly entertaining piece from P.K. on his idea of tearing down IH-345, this time in The Guardian.

#20 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 06 August 2014 - 02:10 PM

Once again, someone promoting the removal to 345 fails to address where all the traffic would go.

 

Nevermind, he probably wants to punish people who drive a car and live in the suburbs until they give up and move into the center of the city. :rolleyes:


- Dylan


#21 Russ Graham

Russ Graham

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Ft Worth

Posted 06 August 2014 - 03:52 PM

I don't understand the confusion.  What part of Dallas would suddenly become inaccessible if that section of freeway disappeared?

if I'm driving from Ennis to 75 & LBJ, where would I go?


Why not just take LBJ?

#22 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 06 August 2014 - 05:11 PM

The problem is not that parts of Dallas would be inaccessible, the problem is that traffic congestion and travel time would increase.


- Dylan


#23 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,119 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 06 August 2014 - 07:01 PM

While clean air and developable, taxable land will also increase.

#24 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 06 August 2014 - 09:44 PM

I would imagine that increased congestion and increased travel time would result in increased polution. :huh:


- Dylan


#25 mmmdan

mmmdan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridglea Hills

Posted 07 August 2014 - 07:28 AM

Whether you are driving 30 mph in stop and go traffic on a highway, or going 30 mph on city streets, it takes the same amount of time to get there.

 

http://www.carfreein...s-traveled.html

http://www.carfreein...-state-why.html

 

Also, he's done studies that show most of the people using 345 are just passing through.  Dallas has lost tons of land and property taxes due to all the highways that surround it.  Those surrounding highways then make the nearby land only useful for parking lots since people don't like living next to highways.

 

Patrick Kennedy is not looking to punish the suburbanites, he's looking to revitalize Dallas.  At some point Dallas has to care more about Dallas and not the people that are just lpassing through.  The shear number of highways surrounding Dallas has allowed people to move further away and the jobs are leaving Dallas too.  Dallas is pretty stagnant as far as population growth, and Dallas county has lost a lot of jobs over the last decade.  http://www.carfreeinbigd.com/2014/04/urbanized-county-job-and-wage-growth-or.html

 

Here's an animated gif that shows how the highways have gutted downtown Dallas.

http://www.carfreein...aerial-gif.html



#26 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,438 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 07 August 2014 - 09:52 AM

Am I crazy to suggest that a good deal of traffic passing through on 345 can utilize some of the the 20 or so lanes of the future Horseshoe project and Woodall Rogers to get around downtown? If, as some suggest, more traffic lanes solve all of these issues, that project should add more than enough to make everyone happy.

And I'm happy to see that there's been a retreat to the default position: anyone suggesting anything that remotely resembles sound urban planning is trying to turn this area into NYC or San Francisco. We won't rest until the entire populous of this area is living in row houses and 40 story housing projects. There's no room for middle ground in this discussion. (I would use the sarcasm font, but I don't feel like being subtle.)

#27 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 07 August 2014 - 02:11 PM

Yes, you are crazy for suggesting that current 345 traffic should converge upon the horshoe project:

 

http://i.imgur.com/2M3h4.jpg

 

This project is primarily for through 30 and 35 traffic. Only two lanes connect I-30 south of DTD and I-35 west of DTD in each direction (look for the purple; each arrow is one lane). Tearing down 345 would tear down 3 lanes of traffic in each direction. 

 

Two lanes in each direction (what the connections are designed for) + 3 lanes in each direction (existing 345 width) = equivalent 5 lanes of traffic.

 

Woodall Rodgers (which can't expand), I-30 south of DTD, and I-35 west of DTD would have to carry three extra lanes worth of traffic.

 

-----------------------

 

And one last note, if 345 were to be torn down, what's to stop out-of-control urbanists from asking for all other freeways to be torn down?


- Dylan


#28 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,438 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 07 August 2014 - 03:33 PM

Don't worry. You said it yourself: control is one thing urbanists do not have in this decision making tree. You'll be safely protected from logic and outside-of-the-box thinking for our lifetimes.

#29 mmmdan

mmmdan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridglea Hills

Posted 07 August 2014 - 03:53 PM

Maybe some of the people that currently live south of downtown and drive to north of downtown will move to downtown and start their journey half way there.  In addition, some of those jobs might move to the new areas of development and the people living there wouldn't have to travel far to get to their job.

 

I highly recommend reading Patrick Kennedy's blog.  www.carfreeinbigd.com  All of these issues have been thought of and there are numerous examples where cities have removed portions of their inner city highways and Armageddon did not occur.  In fact, those places have exploded with development.



#30 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 07 August 2014 - 07:11 PM

I already addressed previous freeway removals in this thread. See post #12.

 

Anyone suggesting that we remove the freeway has absolutely no idea of the magnitude of traffic on it. Milwaukee's Park east freeway, San Francisco's central freeway and Portland's Harbor drive (the examples of freeway removals that were mentioned on here) were all short freeway spurs that detoured from another larger freeway and were barely traveled. They weren't highly travelled freeways that connected different parts of the city like I-345 does.

 

Also, your post reinforces the idea of punishing people who live in the suburbs until they give up and move to the center of the city.


- Dylan


#31 mmmdan

mmmdan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridglea Hills

Posted 08 August 2014 - 06:45 AM

While most of the removals in the U.S. had lower traffic counts than 345, the Cheonggye Expressway carried 168,000 cars, which I would say is pretty similar to 345.  Plus, this is Texas, aren't we supposed to be doing everything bigger here.

 

You keep talking about punishing the suburbs.  What if a lot of the people in the suburbs don't actually want to live there, but they do because there is not enough housing close to downtown.  Just because something would be good for the core of the city doesn't mean they are doing it with malice to the suburbs.

 

Everything in life is about give and take.  The compromise for living in the burbs is that it takes longer to get places.  The excessive freeway building that has occurred has made it very easy for people live far from the core, which has caused the core to empty out and decline.

 

Kennedy theorizes that a big part of the decline of Detroit is the amount of highways that surround it.  While Detroit has been in decline, the surrounding area has boomed.  http://www.carfreein...earch?q=detroit

 

Texas is relatively young, but having come of age with the auto culture, we should be able to see that constantly adding highways does nothing to reduce traffic and congestion.  The positive effect of the new lanes are always short lived because of induced demand.

 

We can either learn a thing or two from these other cities that have been there and done that, or Dallas could end up as the next Detroit.  Based on population and job numbers, it appears that it's already headed in that direction.



#32 mmmdan

mmmdan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridglea Hills

Posted 08 August 2014 - 01:16 PM

Patrick Kennedy was on KERA to discuss the teardown idea.

 

http://keranews.org/..._utmk=165086271



#33 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 550 posts

Posted 12 August 2014 - 11:22 AM

Tunneling I-345 isn't going to work. Take a look at the I-45/I-345 and I-30 intersection closely. I-30 is at the bottom, and I-45/I-345 is at the top, 3 decks higher. That's at least 60 feet higher. You would have to lower I-45/I-345 at least 80 feet. Eliminating it altogether would be easier to accomplish.

 

Before I-45/I-345 was built 50 to 60 years ago, traffic on South Central and North Central Expressways were routed through downtown on two routes, what's called Cesar Chavez now (i.e. Central) and Good Latimer  - which were both called expressways but really weren't) Before the I-345 overhead was built, both Cesar Chavez and Good Latimer were highly congested, with stop and go traffic, taking up to 3 traffic light cycles to get through some of them. Downtown traffic was encouraged to take Central, while thru traffic was encouraged to take Good Latimer. Taffic has increased and is twice as much now.  Today, light rail runs in the median of Good Latimer part of the way, and that eliminated the tunnel under Gaston. Pearl and Cesar Chavez were a one way couplet, they aren't anymore. So, there's less capacity now on these alternates than there was back then.

The reason why these changes were possible over the years? Answer I-345! Without I-345, it'll be a bigger mess today than it was back then. There's a valid reason I-345 was built in the first place. 

 

Trucks and passing thru traffic were encouraged to take bypasses like LBJ by TXDOT for decades. Even I-20 was rerouted to take south LBJ.  But such traffic still runs through downtown because it is shorter and theoretically quicker. They will still do so if I-345 is torn down, and they will still make pedestrian traffic uncomfortable. Why? That's the route GPS systems most cross country truckers use will still recommend. 



#34 Russ Graham

Russ Graham

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Ft Worth

Posted 12 August 2014 - 11:35 AM

But such traffic still runs through downtown because it is shorter and theoretically quicker. They will still do so if I-345 is torn down, and they will still make pedestrian traffic uncomfortable. Why? That's the route GPS systems most cross country truckers use will still recommend. 

 

Modern GPS systems take into account current traffic conditions and will suggest alternate routes around congestion.



#35 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,857 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 12 August 2014 - 12:04 PM

Tunneling I-345 isn't going to work...Without I-345, it'll be a bigger mess today than it was back then. There's a valid reason I-345 was built in the first place....traffic still runs through downtown because it is shorter and theoretically quicker. They will still do so if I-345 is torn down, and they will still make pedestrian traffic uncomfortable. 

 

Oh what a tangle web you weave when you conceive the highway!

 

In retrospect, its looks like the building of Woodall Rogers turned out to be a big mistake. Now faced with having to grapple with its own creation, the solution which seems to makes the best sense for East Dallas is to have I-45 horseshoe around downtown along with I-35/30 and to band trucks from Woodall Rogers and from US75 between LBJ and Woodall Rogers.

 

Such is the wisdom now so evident when Fort Worth chose not to build a corral round downtown.



#36 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,438 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 12 August 2014 - 12:57 PM

This subject really wouldn't be coming up if the overhead didn't need replacement. I have to give some in Dallas credit for thinking creatively about this. They could sit around and wait for decades for the money for replacement to come together and they have a once thriving neighborhood cut off from downtown. What's the saying? "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

#37 hannerhan

hannerhan

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts
  • Location:Ft Worth

Posted 12 August 2014 - 04:41 PM

mmmdan, while I don't really disagree with your point, blaming Detroit's demise on the freeway is like blaming the Cowboys' recent demise on Kyle Orton.  It had nothing to do with Detroit's freeways, just as the resurgence of Houston as a global economic powerhouse has nothing to do with its freeways.



#38 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 12 August 2014 - 09:20 PM

There are still PLENTY of surface lots in DT Dallas that are waiting to be filled in, and there is more to Dallas than just downtown.


 

I-345 benefits far more people than an urban neighborhood would, and we have no idea whether anyone would invest there if it were removed. There are many surface lots currently awaiting development. However, we do know that tens of thousands of people each day would suffer from such a poor decision.

 

****************************************************

While most of the removals in the U.S. had lower traffic counts than 345, the Cheonggye Expressway carried 168,000 cars, which I would say is pretty similar to 345.  Plus, this is Texas, aren't we supposed to be doing everything bigger here.

 

You keep talking about punishing the suburbs.  What if a lot of the people in the suburbs don't actually want to live there, but they do because there is not enough housing close to downtown.  Just because something would be good for the core of the city doesn't mean they are doing it with malice to the suburbs.

 

Everything in life is about give and take.  The compromise for living in the burbs is that it takes longer to get places.  The excessive freeway building that has occurred has made it very easy for people live far from the core, which has caused the core to empty out and decline.

 

Kennedy theorizes that a big part of the decline of Detroit is the amount of highways that surround it.  While Detroit has been in decline, the surrounding area has boomed.  http://www.carfreein...earch?q=detroit

 

Texas is relatively young, but having come of age with the auto culture, we should be able to see that constantly adding highways does nothing to reduce traffic and congestion.  The positive effect of the new lanes are always short lived because of induced demand.

 

We can either learn a thing or two from these other cities that have been there and done that, or Dallas could end up as the next Detroit.  Based on population and job numbers, it appears that it's already headed in that direction.

 

Big difference between Seoul and any major city in the US: Seoul, South Korea is urban, while most of the US is suburban.

 

What makes you think everyone wants to live in a central business district or an urban core? And even if some people did want to move, what makes you think they could afford a place in downtown Dallas? And yes, adding commute times for people living in suburbs would be considered punishment for people living in the suburbs. Your opinion that everyone should live in an urban area is an opinion that most people do not agree with.

 

As hannerhan said, Detroit's problems are not because of its freeways. Every major city in the US has freeways going through it, and few (if any) major cities are having the problems that Detroit has been having lately. Dallas is thriving if you look at the suburbs (especially to the north), just as Fort Worth is thriving in its suburbs. You will just have to accept that cities and metros are made up of suburban areas and suburbs in addition to urban areas.

 

One last note, most freeways are handling more and more traffic each year whether they are expanded or not. If designed correctly / widened enough, freeways that are expanded should not have traffic as dense an before expansion for many decades.


- Dylan


#39 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,857 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 12 August 2014 - 09:47 PM

I-345 benefits far more people than an urban neighborhood would, and we have no idea whether anyone would invest there if it were removed. There are many surface lots currently awaiting development. However, we do know that tens of thousands of people each day would suffer from such a poor decision.....What makes you think everyone wants to live in a central business district or an urban core? And even if some people did want to move, what makes you think they could afford a place in downtown Dallas? And yes, adding commute times for people living in suburbs would be considered punishment for people living in the suburbs. Your opinion that everyone should live in an urban area is an opinion that most people do not agree with.....You will just have to accept that cities and metros are made up of suburban areas and suburbs in addition to urban areas....

 

So, just how does one come to the conclusion that Dallas or Fort Worth or any other urban core city owes anything to a suburb?

 

Ideally, Dallas, in this matter, should do what is in the best interest of its neighborhood as I suspect a suburb would do under similar circumstances.  If commuters feel they are being punished, then the commuters are free to make a choice that they can live with by weighing the costs to benefits.



#40 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 12 August 2014 - 09:54 PM

There are many suburban areas within Dallas proper, just like there are many suburban areas in Fort Worth proper. In addition, Dallas is a metro anchor (just like Fort Worth), and if it wants to keep businesses in the city and commuters coming into the city (whether it be downtown or a suburban office park within city limits), it should have the infastructure to bring people into the city.


- Dylan


#41 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,119 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 12 August 2014 - 10:30 PM

Am I the only one who lives in the burbs (deep in the burbs, Mansfield) and does not see the appeal of freeways? I get to downtown via 287, but if it we're removed entirely, I'd either go to downtown less or find a better home with close access to it. And why should downtown care about me? I don't live there, it owes me nothing. If it we're to benefit that neighborhood then I say go for it. 



#42 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside
  • Interests:Writing, music, photography, games, sci-fi.

Posted 13 August 2014 - 08:22 AM

mmmdan, while I don't really disagree with your point, blaming Detroit's demise on the freeway is like blaming the Cowboys' recent demise on Kyle Orton.  It had nothing to do with Detroit's freeways, just as the resurgence of Houston as a global economic powerhouse has nothing to do with its freeways.

 

One can't blame Detroit's problems on any one specific thing, but the freeway building is a big part of it.


- Architecture/urban planning/transit blogger, Fort Worth Weekly

Fort Worth District 9 Zoning Commissioner


#43 hannerhan

hannerhan

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts
  • Location:Ft Worth

Posted 13 August 2014 - 09:01 AM

Correlation/causation fallacy.

 

Most large cities in the U.S. built extensive freeway infrastructure during the 1950's and 1960's, so why did Detroit end up so differently than ALL the rest of them?  If you want a top 4 reasons, I'd say it was this:

1. Union demands eroding the competitive position of the Detroit automakers over the decades.  This swept out a strong foundation, which was exposed when...

2. Automaker blindness to the efficiency trends was exposed with the Arab oil embargo, causing drastic loss in market share over the following 3 decades

3. Race relations

4. The City of Detroit fighting fire with fire by raising taxes dramatically as people were moving to the suburbs, exacerbating the problems

 

 

The freeways might have greased the wheels slightly, but the scene was already set.  No other city of Detroit's size has relied on a single industry like Detroit did with the automakers, and it was bound to blow up at some point.



#44 mmmdan

mmmdan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridglea Hills

Posted 13 August 2014 - 09:07 AM

There are still PLENTY of surface lots in DT Dallas that are waiting to be filled in, and there is more to Dallas than just downtown.


 

 

Most of those lots are on the fringes of downtown next to the freeways.  There's a good chance that they are still parking lots because when people are looking to build, they last place they look is right next to the freeway.  Freeways are not places that people want to be.

 

You can't possibly look at the success of West 7th and Uptown in Dallas and tell me that people don't want to live close to downtown.



#45 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside
  • Interests:Writing, music, photography, games, sci-fi.

Posted 13 August 2014 - 02:59 PM

Correlation/causation fallacy.

 

Most large cities in the U.S. built extensive freeway infrastructure during the 1950's and 1960's, so why did Detroit end up so differently than ALL the rest of them? 

 

Detroit did not end up differently than all the rest - it just ended up much more severe due to a variety of other factors.  But every major US urban core that's been choked by massive amounts of freeways tends to look like the aftermath of an aerial bombing campaign, because making it easier to empty out the core and causing the land there to become dominated by parking lots is very much tied to the design of our transportation infrastructure.

 

Even downtown Fort Worth did not escape this.


- Architecture/urban planning/transit blogger, Fort Worth Weekly

Fort Worth District 9 Zoning Commissioner


#46 McHand

McHand

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shaw-Clarke
  • Interests:music, neighborhoods, kids, education, biking, politics, urbanism, food, friends, family

Posted 13 August 2014 - 03:27 PM

There are many suburban areas within Dallas proper, just like there are many suburban areas in Fort Worth proper. In addition, Dallas is a metro anchor (just like Fort Worth), and if it wants to keep businesses in the city and commuters coming into the city (whether it be downtown or a suburban office park within city limits), it should have the infastructure to bring people into the city.

 

OR infrastructure/housing/services that make the core attractive enough for people to put down roots.

 

I don't think it will really be a bad thing if people move back from suburbs.  In fact, I think less crowded suburbs will be more attractive, because isn't that the reason people moved to them in the first place?

 

Kennedy's idea may not happen in our lifetimes, but at least he's thinking of a way to make a neglected area livable.  

Why shouldn't people be able to live in the gap between Downtown Dallas and Deep Ellum?  


Voice & Guitars in The Crystal Furs
Elementary Music Specialist, FWISD

Texas Wesleyan 2015
Shaw-Clarke NA 


#47 hannerhan

hannerhan

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts
  • Location:Ft Worth

Posted 13 August 2014 - 05:12 PM

Fort Worthology you can blame the freeways if you want, but when I walk around the urban cores of Houston and Los Angeles (arguably the two most freeway-centric metro areas in the United States), as I have done multiple times in the past year, it seems pretty clear to me that those cities are doing just fine.  Did the freeways hurt the inner city for a time in most areas?  Absolutely.  But the reason that Detroit literally disintegrated over the past 50 years and cities like Houston and Los Angeles are stronger than ever is because Detroit's root problem was much DIFFERENT and more severe, and really didn't have anything to do with freeways.

 

Ironically, the urban core of Detroit is actually doing pretty well.  Whole Foods just opened their first store there a year ago and evidently it's one of the company's better performers.  Lofts are being developed, companies are moving back to downtown, etc.  It's the rest of the city that is still in shambles. 

 

Sorry for getting off topic.  As far as tearing out the freeway in Dallas, I'm ambivalent.  If I lived in Deep Ellum I'd be all for it, and if I commuted from Southeast Dallas to North Dallas (or vice versa), I'd be against it.  It will be an interesting case study if they do it.



#48 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,555 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 16 October 2017 - 11:42 PM

Dallas to consider taking out I-345 and rejoining Downtown to Deep Ellum:

 

http://www.nbcdfw.co...-451191403.html



#49 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 17 October 2017 - 03:58 PM

So... Where did "I-345" come from?

7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#50 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,438 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 17 October 2017 - 06:04 PM

The name or the freeway itself?

 

This thread has offered some pretty spirited discussion over the years.  A few things have changed since the last post more than 3 years ago: the horseshoe interchange rebuild is nearing completion, the toll road on the Trinity that the city said for years had to be complete in order for the horseshoe project to happen never happened and is deader than dead and the area bordering the Trinity to the west of downtown is booming with development, LBJ on the north side was rebuilt, and 183 from Stemmons into Irving is being rebuilt.  I'm not sure the discussion and study would even be taking place if the overhead wasn't in such poor structural shape or if money was readily available to replace it.  The comment following the NBC5 story from the guy saying he likes the freeway because it isolates Deep Ellum and Old East Dallas from Downtown is...interesting. 

 

I'm interested in seeing what the study shows about traffic flow.  This definitely isn't something that will happen overnight.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users