Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

I-345

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 194
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: I-345

Postby electricron » 19 Oct 2017 18:18

For all those advocating a complete tear down and rerouting US-75 to Woodall Rogers, imagine you are driving from Richardson to Houston. Once you get on Woodall Rogers, you will have to make a left turn at Stemmons using the single lane loop by turning right. Then you would have to merge who knows how many lanes to avoid turning west on I-30 and turning south on I-35, then make the exit for the old US -75 exit at Cesar Chavez. Instead of traveling straight through two intersections, you now must travel through five intersections, merging and turning at all five.
Take a close look at the Woodall Rogers and Stemmons intersection one more time. That single lane loop will be insufficient. So that intersection would also have to be reworked, not just the intersection at Central and Woodall Rogers.

I’ll repeat what I have written earlier many times, uptown growth was not affected by Woodall Rogers plowing between it and downtown. Some may even suggest the freeway has helped its growth. Why was it helpful at one location but not at the other? No one has made an acceptable explanation on why to date. And those proposing tearing down I-345 to eliminate a traffic barrier have no problems adding traffic and a larger traffic jam on Woodall Rogers. It seems to me many are speaking with forked tongues, you can’t and shouldn’t have it both ways. What s the real truth?

Has any of these studies actually looked at the economic gains for the city, state, country and all the neighborhoods with any of the alternatives? Will Deep Ellum grow more than Uptown will be hurt?

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 448
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 19 Oct 2017 20:56

Alex Rodriguez wrote:The whole impetus for this discussion was your post way back when and supposition that tearing down I-345 has little to no impact on traffic numbers. You posted

Hours of delay in 2040:
Tear Down - 163.8k
Lower - 163.1k
Replace - 161.3k


I said post the link where you get this. You did. I read it. Page 191 describes the Tear Down Option, Page 194 describes the Trench Option.

To get to this 163.8K traffic number for Tear Down, the description on what has to happen to get 163.8K is right there on page 191. Middle of Page 191 for Tear Down, and I quote, "The changes to I-30 in the Canyon would include implementation of the improvements that were identified in Project Pegasus..." Plus a bunch of other major stuff. Go read it. Then read 194. To get to the Trench 163.1K number, read the description of what they do.

That's it. All the other stuff, the I-30 trench east of I-45, Lower Stemmons, etc etc, has no bearing on anything in regards to comparing the two options for I-345.


You're right, all of the other projects have no bearing when comparing tear-down vs below-grade. I've never said anything to the contrary!

But all of those other projects (including an I-30 rebuild for both) are included in the traffic analyses for *both* below-grade and tear-down. It's true that we don't have tear-down vs below-grade analysis with no other projects. That means the best we can do is compare the two alternatives with all the additional projects (for both!), which shows very little additional impacts from tear-down.

What I think you're arguing (and correct me if this isn't what you're arguing) is that the cost estimate for tear-down should actually be higher b/c it should include an I-30 rebuild.* Ok. So, adding that extra $600 mil to tear-down gets us at a cost estimate ~$100-200 million higher than below-grade.

Now, for the traffic estimates, working backwards from the results that they found, first we remove all the extraneous projects from the analysis, with the exception of I-30 rebuild. Should still roughly be the same differential, agree? Next, we remove the the I-30 rebuild from the below-grade alt (because remember, it's not part of that project), but leave it in place for the tear-down (because that's what we've now defined the tear-down project as including!). Traffic gets way worse for below-grade and remains unchanged for tear-down.

So there's two options:
1. Tear-down and I-30 rebuild are separate projects, tear-down is cheaper than below-grade, and the traffic estimates are similar.
or
2. Tear-down includes I-30 rebuild, tear down is more expensive than below-grade, and traffic is much better in tear-down compared to below-grade.





*it doesn't, but that doesn't really matter for this. Just because it says "PP" in one solitary instance, and one component of PP is the I-30 rebuild, doesn't negate the fact that every single detailed description of changes, list of changes, and map of changes for tear-down does not include an I-30 rebuild. The estimate also clearly doesn't include an I-30 rebuild, and the inclusion of the parenthetical in that graphic indicates that the I-30 rebuild is separate from the tear-down alternative. Context clues. I probably should just stop arguing this point with you, though, because it doesn't even matter.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 448
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 19 Oct 2017 21:50

electricron wrote:For all those advocating a complete tear down and rerouting US-75 to Woodall Rogers, imagine you are driving from Richardson to Houston.


So I don't know the details of the model, I didn't work on it, and there were assuredly some simplifying assumptions compared to the more in-depth study about to be conducted.

That said, they certainly had plenty of flows with origin-destination pairs entering the study area southbound on 75 and exiting the study area southbound on 45, as they've found before that a large portion of the traffic in this area is simply passing through. The models do take into consideration the effect of specific lane alignments as you described. Here's a visualization of the kind of models traffic engineers use: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNrkUUNSTmY

Also, I'll note that the fact that they found only a small congestion difference doesn't mean there's no travel time difference. Delay is just in comparison to free-flow conditions. So that Richardson-Houston trip would definitely take longer due to the longer trip length even if there was no additional delay. To backers of removal, that's not really a fatal flaw, though, as we'd rather that kind of through traffic decide to take the 5-minute longer route around 635 than contribute their pollution and congestion to a central city area that already has plenty of both while just using it as a pass-through.

I’ll repeat what I have written earlier many times, uptown growth was not affected by Woodall Rogers plowing between it and downtown. Some may even suggest the freeway has helped its growth. Why was it helpful at one location but not at the other? No one has made an acceptable explanation on why to date. And those proposing tearing down I-345 to eliminate a traffic barrier have no problems adding traffic and a larger traffic jam on Woodall Rogers. It seems to me many are speaking with forked tongues, you can’t and shouldn’t have it both ways. What s the real truth?


My general (not thoroughly vetted) thought is that Woodall Rogers helped Uptown by helping to kill Downtown. It essentially moved downtown north a couple of miles, while at the same time creating a barrier that made it less likely that the development in Uptown spread back down south to the original Downtown.

So, probably helped Uptown but overall a net loss. The somewhat countervailing impacts, as well as being less of a barrier (yay below-grade and KWP!) is why it's less negatively commented on than I-345. No forked tongue there.

The traffic study area included Woodall Rogers, so the finding of limited overall congestion increase included any impacts to that highway.

Has any of these studies actually looked at the economic gains for the city, state, country and all the neighborhoods with any of the alternatives? Will Deep Ellum grow more than Uptown will be hurt?


No, the economic analysis performed thus far has simply looked at the gains from the newly-developable land freed up by a tear-down. It hasn't studied economic impacts on existing Deep Ellum land, much less Uptown.

The only way I could imagine a net loss is if the current traffic studies are wildly off, and there's a massive increase in congestion with cascading effects far up 75, 35, and DNT, resulting in Uptown being a much less desirable office location and a total lack of interest in the newly-available core parcels. I should note that there are somewhat countervailing effects, as increased congestion would actually increase the value of a core residential location, so long as it didn't turn Uptown into a ghost town.

Still, even if a tear-down did increase congestion, it strains credulity to image that it would be bad enough to create such an apocalyptic situation as to lay waste to Uptown. We're talking $2.5 billion here, plus whatever benefits to Deep Ellum, and Central Dallas is pretty well-served by highways even without that 1.4 mi link!

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 20 Oct 2017 07:49

tanzoak wrote:What I think you're arguing (and correct me if this isn't what you're arguing) is that the cost estimate for tear-down should actually be higher b/c it should include an I-30 rebuild.* Ok. So, adding that extra $600 mil to tear-down gets us at a cost estimate ~$100-200 million higher than below-grade.


What I'm arguing in regards to CityMap numbers you cite that show Tear Down and Trench have the same congestion numbers:

Page 191 Laundry list = Tear Down congestion number
Page 194 Laundry list = Trench congestion number

The Laundry Lists on Page 191 and 194 are totally different. So yes, they end up with the same number, but you have to do 2 totally different lists of things to get to it. That's all I'm arguing for CityMap. The rest of my argument you can go read the first page, its all there.
Last edited by Alex Rodriguez on 20 Oct 2017 07:57, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 20 Oct 2017 07:56

electricron wrote:Once you get on Woodall Rogers, you will have to make a left turn at Stemmons using the single lane loop by turning right. Then you would have to merge who knows how many lanes to avoid turning west on I-30 and turning south on I-35, then make the exit for the old US -75 exit at Cesar Chavez. Instead of traveling straight through two intersections, you now must travel through five intersections, merging and turning at all five.


100% exactly right I didn't even think about that bottleneck. Woodall's main lanes heading Southwest go to Trinity Groves. You have 1 lane to get on the freeway system from Woodall. So everything headed south on Central to Woodall would bottleneck down to 1 lane.

And CityMap DOES NOT address that portion of Woodall, only the Northeast part of it where it joins 345/75. If you disagree, PLEASE CITE PAGE NUMBER FOR EVIDENCE.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 448
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 20 Oct 2017 10:27

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
tanzoak wrote:What I think you're arguing (and correct me if this isn't what you're arguing) is that the cost estimate for tear-down should actually be higher b/c it should include an I-30 rebuild.* Ok. So, adding that extra $600 mil to tear-down gets us at a cost estimate ~$100-200 million higher than below-grade.


What I'm arguing in regards to CityMap numbers you cite that show Tear Down and Trench have the same congestion numbers:

Page 191 Laundry list = Tear Down congestion number
Page 194 Laundry list = Trench congestion number

The Laundry Lists on Page 191 and 194 are totally different. So yes, they end up with the same number, but you have to do 2 totally different lists of things to get to it. That's all I'm arguing for CityMap. The rest of my argument you can go read the first page, its all there.


Lol yes, obviously the lists of things you do in each project are different because you have to do different things to trench a highway than you do to replace it with a boulevard.

For a laundry list in numbered list form (which includes everything that's included in the narrative form of 191 and 194), see pg 226/234 and 251/259.

Here are maps of the two projects, with helpful numbering that pairs with the laundry list. They include everything listed in the narrative descriptions of 191 and 194. Note, that do look pretty different because tearing down and highway and trenching a highway are very different projects and outcomes.

Tear-down:
Image
Below-grade:
Image

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 448
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 20 Oct 2017 10:50

Alex Rodriguez wrote:100% exactly right I didn't even think about that bottleneck. Woodall's main lanes heading Southwest go to Trinity Groves. You have 1 lane to get on the freeway system from Woodall. So everything headed south on Central to Woodall would bottleneck down to 1 lane.

And CityMap DOES NOT address that portion of Woodall, only the Northeast part of it where it joins 345/75. If you disagree, PLEASE CITE PAGE NUMBER FOR EVIDENCE.


Page 41 details the entire study area. And you know there's a whole chapter on the area where Woodall meets I-35, right? Pages 142-159.

Image
Image

I don't know how detailed they've gotten with lane configurations spanning two of the in-depth study areas. Certainly plausible that they haven't done much. But regardless, yes that section of Woodall is absolutely included in the traffic study.

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 20 Oct 2017 10:59

tanzoak wrote:
Alex Rodriguez wrote:And CityMap DOES NOT address that portion of Woodall, only the Northeast part of it where it joins 345/75. If you disagree, PLEASE CITE PAGE NUMBER FOR EVIDENCE.


Page 41 details the entire study area. And you know there's a whole chapter on the area where Woodall meets I-35, right? Pages 142-159.


Again, false. Page 41, 142-159 is Lowest Stemmons. Like I-30 Pegasus it is a specific defined project. Lowest Stemmons does NOT build a new interchange with Woodall Rogers, it is a series of new collector roads that move traffic more efficiently off of I-35E to DNT both ways. The same cloverleaf 1 lane ramp from Woodall to I35 is unchanged. Here is a video of it.

https://youtu.be/KtXwJ6s-w8A?t=31s

Lowest Stemmons is a $650 million project by itself.

http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites ... 0paper.pdf

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 20 Oct 2017 11:09

tanzoak wrote: Lol yes, obviously the lists of things you do in each project are different because you have to do different things to trench a highway than you do to replace it with a boulevard.


Look, this CityMap study is cool, its very interesting. But its not the Bible. You don't HAVE to do Project Pegasus to do the Tear Down Scenario. You don't have to rebuild northest Woodall to do Tear Down. You don't HAVE to rebuild Cesar Chavez and do Tear Down. Or Good Latimer. Or anything else on page 191.

You could tear it down and leave everything else alone. But this study Option page 191 doesn't do that. The option says Tear Down I-345 and do X and Y and Z and AA, and BB and CC and this is what your congestion number is. Meanwhile page 194 says Trench I-345 and do F and G and H and this is your congestion number

Well F,G,H time/cost is a hellava lot different than doing X,Y,Z,AA,BB,CC.

So honestly, enough with citing CityMap as gospel, I think we've played that out. Its not gospel specific dollar amounts to do the different options or honestly apples to apples on the congestion numbers.

We need a new study (which is already underway) that looks at strictly I-345 options. What does it cost to Trench, everything else left alone. What does traffic look like then. What does it cost to Tear down. Everything else left alone. What does traffic look like then.

Then if you want you can put in all the other projects in line items with individual costs and say if you want to rebuild I-30 Project Pegasus its $600 Million. And if you want to rebuild 366/75 its this. Latimer costs this. Chavez costs this. I-45 tear down from MLK costs this.

Hopefully that is what the plan is for the new study.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 448
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 20 Oct 2017 11:55

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
tanzoak wrote:
Alex Rodriguez wrote:And CityMap DOES NOT address that portion of Woodall, only the Northeast part of it where it joins 345/75. If you disagree, PLEASE CITE PAGE NUMBER FOR EVIDENCE.


Page 41 details the entire study area. And you know there's a whole chapter on the area where Woodall meets I-35, right? Pages 142-159.


Again, false. Page 41, 142-159 is Lowest Stemmons. Like I-30 Pegasus it is a specific defined project. Lowest Stemmons does NOT build a new interchange with Woodall Rogers, it is a series of new collector roads that move traffic more efficiently off of I-35E to DNT both ways. The same cloverleaf 1 lane ramp from Woodall to I35 is unchanged. Here is a video of it.

https://youtu.be/KtXwJ6s-w8A?t=31s

Lowest Stemmons is a $650 million project by itself.

http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites ... 0paper.pdf


You asked if CityMAP included that portion of Woodall Rogers in its study area.. it does. I wasn't saying it is part of I-30 tear-down. Buuuut, traffic impacts on that portion of WR are included in the congestion figures. That's how study areas and traffic studies work. They may not have gone into depth about WR lane configurations between 345 and 35 yet, I don't know, but the question was whether they "addressed" WR/35 area. They do.

I don't know why you're so hung up on the name PP just because they mentioned it once. It's an expansive series of projects and improvements that does, you're correct, include I-30 rebuild. PP includes Lowest Stemmons, too, btw. Look at the EA and tech memo I posted earlier. The tear-down alt doesn't include doing all of PP, just the improvements that are listed in the list. And as I showed you earlier, it doesn't even matter for what you're trying to argue.

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 20 Oct 2017 12:06

tanzoak wrote:You asked if CityMAP included that portion of Woodall Rogers in its study area.. it does. I wasn't saying it is part of I-30 tear-down. Buuuut, traffic impacts on that portion of WR are included in the congestion figures. That's how study areas and traffic studies work. They may not have gone into depth about WR lane configurations between 345 and 35 yet, I don't know, but the question was whether they "addressed" WR/35 area. They do.


I'm not hung up on PP. I mentioned PP because we went about a page before I was able to convince you that I-30 PP was an ALREADY DEFINED PROJECT that would cost a ton ($600M). Lowest Stemmons is an ALREADY DEFINED PROJECT that will cost $650M and WILL NOT FIX WOODALL ROGERS INTERCHANGE. TxDot CSJ Project number 0196-03-268.

This is the Lowest Stemmons Project. Right here at this link below. It doesn't fix the cloverleaf 1 lane ramp southbound. Just because Gospel Citymap kinda goes over it and actually sort of lines it out on page 147, this right here is what Citymap is talking about when it says "Lowest Stemmons." Its not a generic name for a section of I-35E, its an ALREADY DEFINED PROJECT, here it is....

http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites ... 0paper.pdf
Last edited by Alex Rodriguez on 20 Oct 2017 12:22, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1275
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: I-345

Postby tamtagon » 20 Oct 2017 12:08

I am enjoying this discussion, thought not reading as thoroughly as I would like. Thanks for the microscopic attention you guys are giving!

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 20 Oct 2017 12:13

tamtagon wrote:I am enjoying this discussion, thought not reading as thoroughly as I would like. Thanks for the microscopic attention you guys are giving!


LOL! We are getting pretty daggone Microscopic!!!

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 448
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 20 Oct 2017 12:30

Alex Rodriguez wrote:Look, this CityMap study is cool, its very interesting. But its not the Bible. You don't HAVE to do Project Pegasus to do the Tear Down Scenario. You don't have to rebuild northest Woodall to do Tear Down. You don't HAVE to rebuild Cesar Chavez and do Tear Down. Or Good Latimer. Or anything else on page 191.

You could tear it down and leave everything else alone. But this study Option page 191 doesn't do that. The option says Tear Down I-345 and do X and Y and Z and AA, and BB and CC and this is what your congestion number is. Meanwhile page 194 says Trench I-345 and do F and G and H and this is your congestion number


You keep talking as if the tear-down alt includes a TON of stuff. Like, yes, when you tear down a highway, you also have to tear out and replace the exit ramps (known as an "interchange"). There will be gaps in the street grid, as streets were previously configured around a no-longer-existing highway. So yes, you also have to rebuild those streets. Engineering-wise, it's best to start at MLK, so that's where they started. There are 36 different things like that that either have to be done or would be extremely dumb not to do. All of these things are part-and-parcel of a tear-down alternative. Just as you have to do a bunch of stuff beyond just literally digging a big hole in ground between downtown and deep ellum for the below-grade alternative. 38 things, in fact!

If you're really so dead-set against including a Cesar Chavez reconfig, I guess you don't *have* to do that, but that would just reduce the cost of the alternative even further. When they say that the tear-down alternative is $X, they mean that project that includes 36 components, not just literally the cost of knocking down the highway.

Maybe it's that you're unclear about the meaning of "alternative" vs "scenario," and maybe I've been using them confusingly interchangeably. The tear-down "alternative" is all of the things included in the project description (the 36 item list). The "scenario" for traffic analysis includes that alternative plus the other projects (parkway, i-30, lowest stemmons). Likewise, the "scenario" for below-grade includes the alternative plus the other projects.

As I have demonstrated before, while we don't have a "scenario" that is just the i-345 alternatives, it is still an apples-to-apples comparison.

We need a new study (which is already underway) that looks at strictly I-345 options. What does it cost to Trench, everything else left alone. What does traffic look like then. What does it cost to Tear down. Everything else left alone.


This is what CityMAP does. Again, "below-grade" doesn't just mean dig a hole. "Remove" doesn't just mean knocking down a highway. If it did, that would be stupid because you need access ramps, etc.

Then if you want you can put in all the other projects in line items with individual costs and say if you want to rebuild I-30 Project Pegasus its $600 Million. And if you want to rebuild 366/75 its this. Latimer costs this. Chavez costs this. I-45 tear down from MLK costs this.

Hopefully that is what the plan is for the new study.


For all the talk about READ THE STUDY, I don't think you actually did (except for page 191), because this is exactly what it does lol.

I-30:
Compressed - $500-999 mil
Below-grade - $2 bil
Relocate - $2+ bil

Southern Gateway: $662 mil

Lowest Stemmons: $100 mil

I-345/45:
Modify - less than $100 mil
Remove - $100-499 mil
Below-grade - $500-999 mil

The only thing that it didn't do, that you want it to do, is run scenarios that are the I-345 alts + no other projects, which would only show different differentials in congestion between tear-down and below-grade if the other projects helped on a tear-down more than a below-grade (which actually I bet is true, though the most relevant ones of i-30 and LS are also highly likely to come to fruition).

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 20 Oct 2017 12:36

This would be ARODMAP - Options for I-345. This is how it should break down.


1. Option 1 - Tear Down - Jersey ramp I-45 North to funnel to I-30 offramps. Jersey ramp US75 to funnel to SH366. Jersey Ramp US366 to funnel to US75. Safely tear down I-345. Reconnect necessary arterial roads in former footprint of I-345

Cost: XXXX
Traffic Impact: XXXX


2. Option 2 - Trench - Build Trench from I45-MLK to US75. Safely tear down I-345. Reconnect necessary arterial roads in across new trench.

Cost XXXX
Traffic Impact: XXXX


Additional Projects:

1. Tear down I45 from MLK to I-30, rebuild all alterials to support Tear Down
Cost XXXX
Traffic XXXX

2. Rebuild US75/366 to support Tear Down
Cost, Traffic

3. Rebuild Woodall Rogers/I35 Interchange to support Tear Down
Cost, Traffic

4. Rebuild I-30 Project Pegasus to support Tear Down or Trench
Cost, Traffic

5. Rebuild Cesar Chavez to support Tear Down
Cost, Traffic

6. Rebuild Good Latimer to support Tear Down
Cost, Traffic

Etc Etc.

That's the comparison you want to see.
Last edited by Alex Rodriguez on 20 Oct 2017 12:39, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 448
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 20 Oct 2017 12:37

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
tanzoak wrote:You asked if CityMAP included that portion of Woodall Rogers in its study area.. it does. I wasn't saying it is part of I-30 tear-down. Buuuut, traffic impacts on that portion of WR are included in the congestion figures. That's how study areas and traffic studies work. They may not have gone into depth about WR lane configurations between 345 and 35 yet, I don't know, but the question was whether they "addressed" WR/35 area. They do.


I'm not hung up on PP. I mentioned PP because we went about a page before I was able to convince you that I-30 PP was an ALREADY DEFINED PROJECT that would cost a ton ($600M). Lowest Stemmons is an ALREADY DEFINED PROJECT that will cost $650M and WILL NOT FIX WOODALL ROGERS INTERCHANGE. TxDot CSJ Project number 0196-03-268.

This is the Lowest Stemmons Project. Right here at this link below. It doesn't fix the cloverleaf 1 lane ramp southbound. Just because Gospel Citymap kinda goes over it and actually sort of lines it out on page 147, this right here is what Citymap is talking about when it says "Lowest Stemmons." Its not a generic name for a section of I-35E, its an ALREADY DEFINED PROJECT, here it is....

http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites ... 0paper.pdf


I don't disagree with any of those statements and never have.. in fact, that's what I've been trying to make clear to you. Those are different projects from I-345.

But FYI, the I-30 rebuild is just one component project of the PP megaproject, which also includes the Horseshoe project and the Lowest Stemmons project. When CityMAP says "implements improvements from PP" wrt i-345, it doesn't refer to the whole megaproject, it refers to the frontage road and interchange improvements that are included in the alts.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 448
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 20 Oct 2017 12:40

If you don't believe me about what PP is, there's a website that has all the info, including EAs and tech memos, etc. http://www.projectpegasus.org/information.htm

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 20 Oct 2017 12:43

Alex Rodriguez wrote: Tear Down Option - Jersey ramp I-45 North to funnel to I-30 offramps. Jersey ramp US75 to funnel to SH366. Jersey Ramp US366 to funnel to US75. Safely tear down I-345. Reconnect necessary arterial roads in former footprint of I-345


This is all you have to actually do to tear down I-345. What is the Congestion number if you do this. That has been my entire point all along.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 448
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 20 Oct 2017 12:50

Alex Rodriguez wrote:This would be ARODMAP - Options for I-345. This is how it should break down.


1. Option 1 - Tear Down - Jersey ramp I-45 North to funnel to I-30 offramps. Jersey ramp US75 to funnel to SH366. Jersey Ramp US366 to funnel to US75. Safely tear down I-345. Reconnect necessary arterial roads in former footprint of I-345

Cost: XXXX
Traffic Impact: XXXX


2. Option 2 - Trench - Build Trench from I45-MLK to US75. Safely tear down I-345. Reconnect necessary arterial roads in across new trench.

Cost XXXX
Traffic Impact: XXXX


Additional Projects:

1. Tear down I45 from MLK to I-30, rebuild all alterials to support Tear Down
Cost XXXX
Traffic XXXX

2. Rebuild US75/366 to support Tear Down
Cost, Traffic

3. Rebuild Woodall Rogers/I35 Interchange to support Tear Down
Cost, Traffic

4. Rebuild I-30 Project Pegasus to support Tear Down or Trench
Cost, Traffic

5. Rebuild Cesar Chavez to support Tear Down
Cost, Traffic

6. Rebuild Good Latimer to support Tear Down
Cost, Traffic

That's the comparison you want to see.


... they basically do all of this? Except they include 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, and 2.6 as part of tear-down. 2.1, 2.2, and 2.6 are inherent to the tear-down project. I think you could separate 2.5, sure, though just note that that would reduce the cost estimate of the project itself.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 448
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 20 Oct 2017 12:53

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
Alex Rodriguez wrote: Tear Down Option - Jersey ramp I-45 North to funnel to I-30 offramps. Jersey ramp US75 to funnel to SH366. Jersey Ramp US366 to funnel to US75. Safely tear down I-345. Reconnect necessary arterial roads in former footprint of I-345


This is all you have to actually do to tear down I-345. What is the Congestion number if you do this. That has been my entire point all along.


"If we do a bad job with the project, what will the congestion be?" is not a good question.

"What if we did the below-grade alternative, but didn't actually connect it to anything? What is the congestion number?" lol

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 20 Oct 2017 12:56

tanzoak wrote:... they basically do all of this? Except they include 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, and 2.6 as part of tear-down. 2.1, 2.2, and 2.6 are inherent to the tear-down project. I think you could separate 2.5, sure, though just note that that would reduce the cost estimate of the project itself.


No they don't. Page 191 is all one option.

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 20 Oct 2017 13:01

tanzoak wrote: "If we do a bad job with the project, what will the congestion be?" is not a good question.

"What if we did the below-grade alternative, but didn't actually connect it to anything? What is the congestion number?" lol


Both my options say to reconnect the arterials above. Below grade obviously has to connect to 45 and 75.


Why would finding out the cost/traffic of doing the bare minimum portion of the project be "a bad job." Did I say to only BUILD the minimum? No. I said determine the cost and traffic values of the minimum. Then line item the additional projects, and what are the value estimates for each one of the specific additional projects. .

That is basic project management, only this millenial generation and younger seem to be able to laugh off basic project management with a LOL and a winky face. Put in a jumbled mess of 45 projects in a 450 page document with lots of winky faces and diagrams, give it a cool name like "CityMap" and say you have it all figured out. When in fact when you read it, its full of overlapping, confusing, incomplete numbers, apples vs oranges comparisons, and really tells you nothing except to make it appear all the options are the same impact..
Last edited by Alex Rodriguez on 20 Oct 2017 13:06, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 448
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 20 Oct 2017 13:03

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
tanzoak wrote:... they basically do all of this? Except they include 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, and 2.6 as part of tear-down. 2.1, 2.2, and 2.6 are inherent to the tear-down project. I think you could separate 2.5, sure, though just note that that would reduce the cost estimate of the project itself.


No they don't. Page 191 is all one option.


You're confusing the "alternative" that goes into the cost estimate with the "scenario" that is used for the traffic analysis, of which the alternative is one component.

Yes, the "scenario" includes i-30 rebuild, us-175 (southern gateway), and lowest stemmons. As does the scenario for below-grade. Sure, they could take those out for both scenarios and rerun the numbers. But unless you think that those projects help tear-down more than they help below-grade (possible!), it wouldn't change the congestion differential between tear-down and below-grade.

For a detailed list of the components of the i-345 "alternatives", see pg 226/234 and 251/259.

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 20 Oct 2017 13:09

tanzoak wrote:Yes, the "scenario" includes i-30 rebuild, us-175 (southern gateway), and lowest stemmons. As does the scenario for below-grade.


No it doesn't. Sorry man, but CityMap isn't gospel anyway, so quit citing it as if Jesus himself came down from on high to give us the 10 Citymaps and its all good. Its a cool doc thats really interesting but totally incomplete in regards to I-345 options.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 448
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 20 Oct 2017 13:15

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
tanzoak wrote: "If we do a bad job with the project, what will the congestion be?" is not a good question.

"What if we did the below-grade alternative, but didn't actually connect it to anything? What is the congestion number?" lol


Both my options say to reconnect the arterials above. Below grade obviously has to connect to 45 and 75.

Why would finding out the cost/traffic of doing the bare minimum portion of the project be "a bad job." Did I say to only BUILD the minimum? No. I said determine the cost and traffic values of the minimum. Then line item the additional projects, and what are the value estimates for each one of the specific additional projects.



That was snarky, sorry. It's just that some of the things that you broke out are *part* of the bare minimum. You can't tear out i-345 without doing construction on that interchange with WR/75. You can't just start north of i-30 because physics. Etc.

That is basic project management, only this millenial generation and younger seem to be able to laugh off basic project management with a LOL and a winky face. Put in a jumbled mess of 45 projects in a 450 page document with lots of winky faces and diagrams, give it a cool name like "CityMap" and say you have it all figured out. When in fact when you read it, its full of overlapping, confusing, incomplete numbers, apples vs oranges comparisons, and really tells you nothing except to make it appear all the options are the same impact..


I apologize for them that they've made it confusing. I do this stuff for a living (though much less productively the last day or two lol), so it's not confusing to me, and I'm trying to explain to you how they didn't actually do all this crappy stuff you think they did.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 448
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 20 Oct 2017 13:18

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
tanzoak wrote:Yes, the "scenario" includes i-30 rebuild, us-175 (southern gateway), and lowest stemmons. As does the scenario for below-grade.


No it doesn't. Sorry man, but CityMap isn't gospel anyway, so quit citing it as if Jesus himself came down from on high to give us the 10 Citymaps and its all good. Its a cool doc thats really interesting but totally incomplete in regards to I-345 options.


Ahem, "Model uses I-30 5-2-2-5. System for each scenario assumes the following projects or operational improvements are constructed: Southern Gateway, Lowest Stemmons, and Trinity Parkway 4 Lane 45MPH concept."

I'm not saying it's gospel, I'm saying that your criticisms of it are incorrect.

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 20 Oct 2017 13:32

Sorry for being Snarky back. I think we've played out the CityMap analysis. The city and TxDot are already moving forward with an I-345 specific study, will be interesting to see which way it goes.

All to summarize my opinion, Citymap facts and figures (or lack thereof, wherever you land) nonwithstanding...If you are going to tear down, you will have to basically rebuild the entire downtown freeway and street system to handle the loss of 200K car per day capacity. And that's fine, but lets have a good, honest, hard number for each of the different components of that. Line item each individual project out and assign a good honest value to it.

My belief is it is best to tunnel it underground. Next best option is a trench. Either way this can be done independently of any other project, (except basic reconnections on top) and you keep your existing capacity.

If you tear down, you MUST do a whole bunch of other projects in conjunction because nobody wants my basic tear down option of putting up Jersey Barriers. But again, assign an honest value to the basic tear down, and then add back as much capacity as you can a-la-carte, having a good understanding of what each option will cost and how much it improves congestion

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 448
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 20 Oct 2017 14:01

I get that you're trying to be conciliatory, but the "good, honest, hard number for each of the components" line implies that what they've provided is crappy, dishonest, squishy, and does not isolate individual projects.

Again, the cost estimates are for individual, narrowly-defined projects that only include what is strictly necessary to make the alternative work. You cannot tear down I-345 without redoing the interchange at WR/75, for instance. There is no "Jersey barrier" solution. Maybe you could quibble with a few of the parts (like the CC/I-30 off-ramp removal), but splitting those off would tend to *reduce* the costs.

The traffic estimates include the broader range of projects that are in the long-range plan, but they include it for *both* alternatives. So it's an apples-to-apples comparison, though not the specific apples-to-apples comparison you're calling for. Still, the given estimates provide a valid point of comparison of the differential impacts.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 448
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 20 Oct 2017 14:40

If you want some good arguments against this study, I'll give them to you:

1. "The I-30 and Lowest Stemmons projects are way more important to a well-functioning system in a tear-down world than a below-grade one. Furthermore, I don't think those two projects are likely to be built, which means that the traffic impact of the tear-down alternative would be much worse than this estimate."

2. "At this point in the study, I doubt they've modeled lane configurations over the entire study area, and there's a specific issue on Woodall Rogers that will make traffic much worse when transferring from 75 to 35 than just using flows will indicate."

3. "The error ranges on the estimates for these studies are huge. (And of course they didn't include them because of course not, freaking transportation planners/engineers!). They give these precise numbers, but really we know basically nothing."

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 20 Oct 2017 15:27

tanzoak wrote:I get that you're trying to be conciliatory, but the "good, honest, hard number for each of the components" line implies that what they've provided is crappy, dishonest, squishy, and does not isolate individual projects.


No I'm not implying dishonest. I'm implying unclear, confusing, not specific, options with 25 other options thrown in comparing to other options that have 8 other options included.

Although you obviously disagree, I've already shot the dang Citymap thing full of holes, from the nebulous $100-499M number that obviously doesn't include $600 Million for I-30/Project Pegasus/The Canyon. Which by the way is a completely different project from the graphic you keep posting which is talking about I-30 EAST of I-45, the possible deck park / relocate project. And the numbers don't include rebuilding Woodall Rogers and I-35, as that is not part of Lowest Stemmons, meaning you have a single lane bottleneck coming south on 75 through Woodall Rogers. And 25 other things I've spent 2 pages of comments arguing about, I'm not going to re-type it all.

That's all. This report is too overarching, tries to talk about too many different projects, lumps too much into single scenarios, and isn't specific on costs, its a mess. An interesting mess, but a mess nonetheless. If this was the document that the City and State based a decision on to either tear down or trench I-345 it would be a debacle. Break the project down in chunks, get some good honest, unskewed numbers, do apple to apple and there you go.

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 20 Oct 2017 15:29

tanzoak wrote:If you want some good arguments against this study, I'll give them to you:

1. "The I-30 and Lowest Stemmons projects are way more important to a well-functioning system in a tear-down world than a below-grade one. Furthermore, I don't think those two projects are likely to be built, which means that the traffic impact of the tear-down alternative would be much worse than this estimate."

2. "At this point in the study, I doubt they've modeled lane configurations over the entire study area, and there's a specific issue on Woodall Rogers that will make traffic much worse when transferring from 75 to 35 than just using flows will indicate."

3. "The error ranges on the estimates for these studies are huge. (And of course they didn't include them because of course not, freaking transportation planners/engineers!). They give these precise numbers, but really we know basically nothing."


Hey there we go, now were talking. I'll stipulate to all of this.

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 20 Oct 2017 15:35

And don't get me wrong, I've spent the better part of 2 full days reading CityMap, it is super interesting stuff. Just don't think it gets you across the finish line to make a tear-down/trench decision. I'm a road geek obviously, so giving me 450 pages of road geekiness is 100% great with me.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 448
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 20 Oct 2017 15:55

Alex Rodriguez wrote:Although you obviously disagree, I've already shot the dang Citymap thing full of holes, from the nebulous $100-499M number that obviously doesn't include $600 Million for I-30/Project Pegasus/The Canyon. Which by the way is a completely different project from the graphic you keep posting which is talking about I-30 EAST of I-45, the possible deck park / relocate project.



I'm sorry, but you haven't shot a single hole. They don't include the $600 mil for I-30 Canyon because it isn't part of the alternative. It does say $600 mil (well, $500-$999 mil) on page 6 (among others), where it describes the I-30 Canyon alternative.

Nowhere does it say that the I-30 Canyon alternative is also part of the Remove alternative. Yes, I have read page 191, and no it does not say that it's part of the alternative. It talks about implementing some of the interchange (exit ramp) modifications (specifically Cesar Chavez) and frontage road improvements from Project Pegasus. It doesn't even mention PP anywhere else in the myriad places where it describes the alternative, and I'm sure if the planners knew how much confusion this was causing you, they would change it. For a clear, itemized list of the Remove alternative, please see pages 226/234 and 251/259. There are accompanying maps a page earlier if you're more of a visual person.

Again, yes a I-30 rebuild (and not just the part that is east of 45) is included in *all* scenarios. It covers, and I quote: "the reconstruction of Interstate 30 between the I-30/I-35E Interchange (the Horseshoe Project) and Dolphin Road in East Dallas... The Mobility 2040 Preliminary that is the basis of comparison is a 5-2-2-5 configuration which provides 25% more general purpose lane capacity" <-Remember the 5-2-2-5 I-30 configuration that is specifically included in all I-345 scenarios? This is it.

I'm a transportation engineer. The report is clear. I'm sorry if you can't parse it.

(edited to be slightly less of a dick)
Last edited by tanzoak on 20 Oct 2017 15:59, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 448
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 20 Oct 2017 15:56

Alex Rodriguez wrote:And don't get me wrong, I've spent the better part of 2 full days reading CityMap, it is super interesting stuff. Just don't think it gets you across the finish line to make a tear-down/trench decision. I'm a road geek obviously, so giving me 450 pages of road geekiness is 100% great with me.


It doesn't get you across the finish line. Not at all. Not even close. But the objections you have to it are just factually incorrect.

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 20 Oct 2017 16:29

tanzoak wrote:I'm a transportation engineer.


Well I'm not a transportation engineer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.

User avatar
hjkll
Posts: 41
Joined: 16 Sep 2017 20:56

I-345 Teardown

Postby hjkll » 22 Oct 2017 23:56

For or against?

User avatar
joshua.dodd
Posts: 317
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 01:11

Re: I-345 Teardown

Postby joshua.dodd » 23 Oct 2017 03:14

For

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345 Teardown

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 23 Oct 2017 08:36

Against (For Trench/Tunnel)

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 977
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: I-345 Teardown

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 23 Oct 2017 09:34

Fo'

User avatar
eburress
Posts: 322
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:13

Re: I-345 Teardown

Postby eburress » 23 Oct 2017 09:37

For, whether it's a tunnel or a complete removal (maybe preferable).

Part of the reason I favor complete removal is that it will show folks it is possible to live without freeways and as a result, among other things, fewer Trinity Tollways will be proposed/supported.

User avatar
citygeek
Posts: 32
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 13:44
Location: DFW-Tampa Bay

Re: I-345 Teardown

Postby citygeek » 23 Oct 2017 10:12

Absolutely for.

User avatar
Waldozer
Posts: 94
Joined: 12 Mar 2017 06:30

Re: I-345 Teardown

Postby Waldozer » 23 Oct 2017 10:18

Fore

User avatar
dukemeredith
Posts: 250
Joined: 22 Oct 2016 12:17
Location: Downtown Dallas

Re: I-345 Teardown

Postby dukemeredith » 23 Oct 2017 10:53

This topic is being discussed in impressive detail on the Transportation + Infrustructre side of this forum.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1275
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: I-345 Teardown

Postby tamtagon » 23 Oct 2017 11:25

I'm for tearing out the ancient highway structure. I think I would be relatively satisfied if the highway is replaced by a boulevard with some thru-traffic component, replaced by an updated highway with fewer support columns interfering with the street grid, or thru-traffic components removed all together.

dukemeredith wrote:This topic is being discussed in impressive detail on the Transportation + Infrustructre side of this forum.


merged

DPatel304
Posts: 968
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49

Re: I-345

Postby DPatel304 » 31 Oct 2017 12:20

Is tunneling an option seeing as how the D2 will be passing underneath I-345? I believe all alignments have the D2 coming above ground right where I-345 is, so I'm curious to know if tunneling is still an option with this in mind.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 448
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 31 Oct 2017 12:28

DPatel304 wrote:Is tunneling an option seeing as how the D2 will be passing underneath I-345? I believe all alignments have the D2 coming above ground right where I-345 is, so I'm curious to know if tunneling is still an option with this in mind.


Tunneling is not being considered because it would be exorbitantly expensive.

DPatel304
Posts: 968
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49

Re: I-345

Postby DPatel304 » 31 Oct 2017 12:55

Yeah, I figured as much. I'm just wondering even if we take out cost as a factor, if this is even feasible.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 448
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: I-345

Postby tanzoak » 31 Oct 2017 14:16

DPatel304 wrote:Yeah, I figured as much. I'm just wondering even if we take out cost as a factor, if this is even feasible.


Most things are possible if you take out cost as a factor (we put a man on the moon, remember). It's just the cost/benefit is so far out of whack for a tunnel that it's not within the reasonable possibility space.

cowboyeagle05
Posts: 1294
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 08:45

Re: I-345

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 31 Oct 2017 15:26

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.

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 08 Nov 2017 11:12

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... t-citymap/

"The Dallas City Council will not vote as planned today on whether to study the economic impact of tearing out I-345, the 1.4-mile elevated highway that separates downtown from Deep Ellum. Assistant City Manager Raquel Favela confirmed late Tuesday that it was deleted from the agenda.

The topic will be sent back to the Housing and Economic Development Committee, where it appears likely that a discussion will occur about whether to broaden the study to include the potential for growth around projects that the Texas Department of Transportation has already deemed priorities: the Lower Stemmons corridor near the I-35E and Dallas North Tollway connection; the Canyon along Interstate 30, including the exits off the freeway near Fair Park; and the 12.1-mile second phase of Interstate 35’s construction, which includes the Medical District north through TX-183."


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.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

Login