Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

I-345

User avatar
TNWE
Posts: 8
Joined: 03 May 2017 09:42

Re: I-345

Postby TNWE » 08 Nov 2017 11:31

cowboyeagle05 wrote:Also its a game of who gets their project built first. TXDOT will take into account the likelihood that DART will get D2 built before TXDOT gets funding for a highway rebuild.

Certain Parties were pushing for D2 to be subway in the vicinity of 345 so it would effectively poison the well against any tunnel/trench 345 alternatives, and an at-grade D2 in the vicinity of 345 would harm Certain Parties' plan for an at-grade boulevard to replace 345.

If I'm TxDOT, I'm doing my alternatives analysis independent of D2, and telling Certain Parties they're on the hook for any extra costs required as a result of their attempt to poison-pill the 345 alternatives they didn't want.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 311
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 08 Nov 2017 11:34

Alex Rodriguez wrote:This is a win for those of us that argue that you can't just remove I-345 without understanding the ramifications to the rest of the street/freeway system. Also that you can't remove I-345 without major upgrades to the rest of the street/freeway system, in advance of tear-down.


Literally no one thinks that should should tear down I-345 without studying its impact on the rest of the transportation system.

Regardless, this study has nothing to do with that. This is the economic development study. And A New Dallas (i.e. the org dedicated to making an I-345 teardown happen) is in full support of the postponement to include all the downtown-adjacent projects. TxDOT will be announcing later this month that it is funding a full planning and engineering study on I-345.

Also, you're aware that the I-30 reconstruction and Lowest Stemmons projects are about to get approval at the next TxDOT Commission meeting for $2 billion to build them, right? The imminent nature of these projects is why they were included in the modeling.

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 81
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 08 Nov 2017 13:19

tanzoak wrote:
Literally no one thinks that should should tear down I-345 without studying its impact on the rest of the transportation system.


This is false. There are a ton of people advocating this. Maybe not your group, but the old 50 page thread I'd say nearly half of them advocated "lets close the road and see what happens," or "just tear it down, people will figure it out/reroute."

The rest of it we discussed ad nauseum last month not going to get into it again. My position is clear just go reread the first 3 pages of this thread if you're interested

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 311
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 08 Nov 2017 13:54

Alex Rodriguez wrote:This is false. There are a ton of people advocating this. Maybe not your group, but the old 50 page thread I'd say nearly half of them advocated "lets close the road and see what happens," or "just tear it down, people will figure it out/reroute."


Ok, well not doing traffic impact studies is not part of the possibility space, so you don't need to spend time arguing against that, just FYI.

Also, again, this economic development study is separate from the forthcoming traffic impact analysis.

User avatar
art_suckz
Posts: 60
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 10:02
Location: Design District
Contact:

Re: I-345

Postby art_suckz » 08 Nov 2017 15:11

I say, let's see what happens.... that's what they did to the neighborhoods when they built it.
To the man who only has a hammer, everything he encounters begins to look like a nail.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Login