What You Should Know: TxDOT's IH-345 Proposal and Our Next Steps
We know it’s been a while since you’ve heard from us. We’ve been working behind the scenes to help guide the process around IH-345 replacement and ensure that this potentially transformational city-building project for our city is done correctly–and equitably.
IH-345 appeared back in the headlines this summer when TxDOT presented their results of the IH-345 public comment period and the agency’s ‘preferred alternative’ to the City of Dallas Transportation Committee. While we were unsurprised that what’s been called the ‘compromise’ hybrid alternative solution (a depressed 10-lane highway) was presented as TxDOT’s singular preferred alternative, we remain concerned about the process and how success is being defined.
There is only one data point used to determine the preferred alternative, which is travel delay. Put otherwise, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. There is no real data nor comparison of tax base generated, amount of new jobs, reduction of emissions, air quality impacts, affordable housing potential, nor public transit improvements proposed. The outcome is thusly pre-determined given that TxDOT and the City’s Transportation Department have led the process exclusively (using a single metric, which requires much more in-depth questioning on its own*), without deep coordination of Dallas’ goals and perspectives across Economic Development, Planning, Housing & Neighborhood Revitalization, Environmental Quality, Planning & Urban Design, etc. Since reimagining the I-345 corridor isn’t simply a transportation project, it’s critical that every alternative solution presented to Council be evaluated across comprehensive metrics.
There should be no singular ‘preferred alternative’ pushed through by TxDOT and voted on by Council, rather multiple schemes should move onto the next phase, which is the multi-year FEIS**. With such a city-defining project, to only have one alternative (an oxymoron in itself) progress to the next step of review for a years-long process and millions of dollars feels myopic at best. For an example of a preferred process, see what NYDOT did with Syracuse I-81 where there was an in-depth analysis for every option. Spoiler alert: ultimately, the community grid alternative was chosen.
The hybrid alternative may be framed as an ‘easy, obvious’ compromise, but it’s really a billion-plus dollar dig with no real upside—for anyone. Why would we spend decades and billion-plus dollars if we aren’t going to at least get the process right? We believe this transformational project has the potential to be the catalyst to reimagine and shape Dallas’ future, so the question is: are we going to stick with the status quo of the politically-expedient ‘Dallas way’ of infrastructure?; cars before people; jobs in the suburbs over jobs and housing in the core, or actually pursue a vision that has the potential to create more jobs, housing, and opportunity right here in Dallas? The latter may be harder and less popular, but isn’t it worth at least trying? IH-345 will either be a significant expense or significant investment for tax payers, and we believe the proposed model is most definitely the former.
Over the coming weeks, we will be ‘digging’ into (pun intended) these issues and more, and encourage you to do the same. Please contact your City Council member and ask these questions: namely, why are we letting TxDOT determine the future of our city when so much is at stake? Why can’t we expand the process to include more in-depth analysis that takes into consideration multiple goals, such as environment, housing, job creation, and equitable development for a once-in-a-generation project?
*How did TxDOT come up with 19,000 hours of additional delay when TxDOT’s own CityMAP found the removal option to only have 1 minute of additional delay? In CityMAP the total hours of delay for the Removal Option is 163,800 whereas the Below Grade option was 163,100. Would TxDOT say those are virtually identical? Why such a disparity in this feasibility analysis? After TxDOT got the results of the travel delay analysis, was any effort made to improve upon design schemes in order to reduce the travel delay? Whereas CityMAP and Toole studies attempted to maximize north-south surface street capacity, the Removal scheme seems to do the opposite and the higher travel delay seems to agree.