User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 4:52:03 PM EDT
[#1]
I could get behind this...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 4:53:29 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: From Politico. I'm strongly in favor of removing a number of highways, particularly I345 in Dallas. The benefits to the city can hardly be overstated. Dwight D. Eisenhower didn’t like the way America’s interstate highway system turned out. The interstates, as he saw it, were supposed to create connections between different cities, not gouge paths through the middle of them. But by the time his presidency came to an end in 1960, huge highways and overpasses had obliterated thickly settled urban areas, uprooting families and dividing neighborhoods, all paid for with federal money. Eisenhower was aghast. Today, with the urban highways of the Eisenhower era nearing the end of their useful lives, cities and state transportation leaders face a choice: Rebuild their highway segments at great expense, or tear them down and replace them with surface streets. I'm aware I'll catch flak for this, but I like San Antonio's system. Two ring roads, with 4 or 5 highways crossing into downtown from various directions. Easy to navigate at least. Surface-streets only would suck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 4:53:45 PM EDT
[#3]
As long as they keep the bypasses. Fuck driving through a city on surface streets if you aren't going somewhere in the city.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 4:53:46 PM EDT
[#4]
An interstate freeway that doesn't go through every fucking city in the state and get bogged down with traffic and change speed limits at a whim? Get out of here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 4:54:06 PM EDT
[#5]
It is all part of the plan, to keep people in the cities.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 4:54:21 PM EDT
[#6]
"Maybe if we make it impossible to leave, we can stop white flight...genius!"
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 4:55:27 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is all part of the plan, to keep people in the cities. For me it will have the opposite effect. I just won't go. But others can do what they like. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 4:55:45 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: An interstate freeway that doesn't go through every fucking city in the state and get bogged down with traffic and change speed limits at a whim? Get out of here. Then bypass that shit. Only don't make it another goddamn toll road. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 4:55:50 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm aware I'll catch flak for this, but I like San Antonio's system. Two ring roads, with 4 or 5 highways crossing into downtown from various directions. Easy to navigate at least. Surface-streets only would suck. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
From Politico. I'm strongly in favor of removing a number of highways, particularly I345 in Dallas. The benefits to the city can hardly be overstated. Dwight D. Eisenhower didn’t like the way America’s interstate highway system turned out. The interstates, as he saw it, were supposed to create connections between different cities, not gouge paths through the middle of them. But by the time his presidency came to an end in 1960, huge highways and overpasses had obliterated thickly settled urban areas, uprooting families and dividing neighborhoods, all paid for with federal money. Eisenhower was aghast.
Today, with the urban highways of the Eisenhower era nearing the end of their useful lives, cities and state transportation leaders face a choice: Rebuild their highway segments at great expense, or tear them down and replace them with surface streets. I'm aware I'll catch flak for this, but I like San Antonio's system. Two ring roads, with 4 or 5 highways crossing into downtown from various directions. Easy to navigate at least. Surface-streets only would suck. Yeah having to rely on nothing but surface streets would make rush hour a special kind of hell. It's bad enough already, can't imagine how bad it would get if you had to enter the city from the outskirts using nothing but surface streets. I think part of the problem is people trying to use the highways to cut through the city rather than enter it. If you are just going past the city, just use the belt way and go around it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:00:22 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah having to rely on nothing but surface streets would make rush hour a special kind of hell. It's bad enough already, can't imagine how bad it would get if you had to enter the city from the outskirts using nothing but surface streets. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: From Politico. I'm strongly in favor of removing a number of highways, particularly I345 in Dallas. The benefits to the city can hardly be overstated. Dwight D. Eisenhower didn’t like the way America’s interstate highway system turned out. The interstates, as he saw it, were supposed to create connections between different cities, not gouge paths through the middle of them. But by the time his presidency came to an end in 1960, huge highways and overpasses had obliterated thickly settled urban areas, uprooting families and dividing neighborhoods, all paid for with federal money. Eisenhower was aghast. Today, with the urban highways of the Eisenhower era nearing the end of their useful lives, cities and state transportation leaders face a choice: Rebuild their highway segments at great expense, or tear them down and replace them with surface streets. I'm aware I'll catch flak for this, but I like San Antonio's system. Two ring roads, with 4 or 5 highways crossing into downtown from various directions. Easy to navigate at least. Surface-streets only would suck. Yeah having to rely on nothing but surface streets would make rush hour a special kind of hell. It's bad enough already, can't imagine how bad it would get if you had to enter the city from the outskirts using nothing but surface streets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:02:30 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As long as they keep the bypasses. Fuck driving through a city on surface streets if you aren't going somewhere in the city. Quote HistoryQuoted:
As long as they keep the bypasses. Fuck driving through a city on surface streets if you aren't going somewhere in the city. That's the problem. I went to a reception with Wick Allison (publisher of D Magazine and The American Conservative) and he mentioned that something like 65% of the traffic on I345 does not originate or terminate their journey in the City of Dallas. They are just passing through. Quoted:
An interstate freeway that doesn't go through every fucking city in the state and get bogged down with traffic and change speed limits at a whim? Get out of here. That was what Eisenhower intended, but he didn't get far enough into the details and the execution got away from him. The results have been catastrophic. Quoted:
Yeah having to rely on nothing but surface streets would make rush hour a special kind of hell. It's bad enough already, can't imagine how bad it would get if you had to enter the city from the outskirts using nothing but surface streets. I think part of the problem is people trying to use the highways to cut through the city rather than enter it. If you are just going past the city, just use the belt way and go around it. Many cities around the world use boulevards. Wide roads for higher speed traffic that still allow for pedestrian crossing and aren't completely disruptive. It works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:04:28 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Look at Austin. the only highway access to downtown is 35. Which sucks the Devil's thorny scrotum. Or you can try to get out via the surface streets to 183 or MoPac or whatever. But the surface streets fill up even faster, the lights suck, there's usually no turning lanes, and when it rains all the LWC's flood. Now they throw in a light rail train that doesn't actually go anywhere, just to fuck with traffic some more. Austin doesn't have a street grid that allows the traffic to fan out. A true street grid has thousands more lane miles available, and can spread the impact of an accident or stalled vehicle out and increase mobility. It turns out that freeways are often slower than surface streets. That, combined with exaggerated numbers of cars and VMTs which are the natural result of urban freeways and you've got a recipe for gridlock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:04:37 PM EDT
[#13]
Anywhere you build a freeway the property surrounding it is going to become a strip mall - apartment infested shithole.
The problem with most freeways is that they are too fucking small. In Washington state there's only one North-South freeway, I5. In some places it's only two lanes in each direction. That fucker needs to be straightened out and it needs to be an 4 lane freeway on both sides from Oregon to Canada. Going through Olympia, Seattle, Everett, Marysville, Mt Vernon and Bellingham it needs to become an 8 lane freeway in each direction. Fucking bulldoze under all of the crap buildings and shitholes in the way. Straighten it out, no hills, no curves. It's too late to destroy freeways, the only thing we can do now is fix them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:08:18 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's too late to destroy freeways, the only thing we can do now is fix them. Seattle would have been an incredibly easy city to bypass, back in the day when there was nothing where 405 is now. 
The city was built on a fantastic grid. 
While the east side was essentially empty. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:08:37 PM EDT
[#15]
I345 is not a real highway. It's only a mile and a half long. It's just a connector road.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:08:56 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah having to rely on nothing but surface streets would make rush hour a special kind of hell. It's bad enough already, can't imagine how bad it would get if you had to enter the city from the outskirts using nothing but surface streets. Welcome to Vancouver, British Columbia. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:10:20 PM EDT
[#17]
Boston big dig was 25 billion about 100 billion today
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:12:42 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I345 is not a real highway. It's only a mile and a half long. It's just a connector road. It moves a lot of traffic. But it is just a way through town. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:13:47 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Many cities around the world use boulevards. Wide roads for higher speed traffic that still allow for pedestrian crossing and aren't completely disruptive. It works. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yeah having to rely on nothing but surface streets would make rush hour a special kind of hell. It's bad enough already, can't imagine how bad it would get if you had to enter the city from the outskirts using nothing but surface streets. I think part of the problem is people trying to use the highways to cut through the city rather than enter it. If you are just going past the city, just use the belt way and go around it. Many cities around the world use boulevards. Wide roads for higher speed traffic that still allow for pedestrian crossing and aren't completely disruptive. It works. I drive through DC a lot.. they have roads like that. During rush hour they even change the flow of traffic so all lanes go in one direction to get people in or out faster. Doesn't work worth a shit Still takes forever to get anywhere.
The solutions really have to be tailored for the specific city. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:14:03 PM EDT
[#20]
Yeah I-81 through Syracuse really fucked things up. The viaduct needs replaced, and they're arguing about what to do with it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:14:08 PM EDT
[#21]
This is what they are trying to do in Dallas.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:15:12 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I drive through DC a lot.. they have roads like that. During rush hour they even change the flow of traffic so all lanes go in one direction to get people in or out faster. Doesn't work worth a shit Still takes forever to get anywhere. The solutions really have to be tailored for the specific city. Agreed. Houston took the opposite approach and built around cars. Traffic is almost as bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:20:15 PM EDT
[#23]
It may not be intuitive, but we know from experience that cities can do very well without some of their most heavily-trafficked elevated roads. On occasion, due to neglect or an act of God, urban highway segments that carried tens of thousands of cars each day suddenly ceased to function and had to come down. That’s what happened after part of the decrepit Miller Highway on the West Side of Manhattan collapsed in 1973... This is a grotesque oversimplification of what happened. The West Side Highway was obsolete as soon as they built it. The lanes were ten feet wide. The ramps were too short and too tight and traffic backed up from the streets onto the highway. It was one of the worst roads in the country. They tore down the last of it in 1989. It took another dozen years to get it usable and it's still not that great. It moves a little, but they blocked access from several of the cross streets and widened it. It's intentionally deceptive to say the design proves that interstates are bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:24:54 PM EDT
[#24]
Now I feel like playing Sim city
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:26:17 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is a grotesque oversimplification of what happened. The West Side Highway was obsolete as soon as they built it. The lanes were ten feet wide. The ramps were too short and too tight and traffic backed up from the streets onto the highway. It was one of the worst roads in the country. They tore down the last of it in 1989. It took another dozen years to get it usable and it's still not that great. It moves a little, but they blocked access from several of the cross streets and widened it. It's intentionally deceptive to say the design proves that interstates are bad. Quote HistoryQuoted:
It may not be intuitive, but we know from experience that cities can do very well without some of their most heavily-trafficked elevated roads. On occasion, due to neglect or an act of God, urban highway segments that carried tens of thousands of cars each day suddenly ceased to function and had to come down. That’s what happened after part of the decrepit Miller Highway on the West Side of Manhattan collapsed in 1973... This is a grotesque oversimplification of what happened. The West Side Highway was obsolete as soon as they built it. The lanes were ten feet wide. The ramps were too short and too tight and traffic backed up from the streets onto the highway. It was one of the worst roads in the country. They tore down the last of it in 1989. It took another dozen years to get it usable and it's still not that great. It moves a little, but they blocked access from several of the cross streets and widened it. It's intentionally deceptive to say the design proves that interstates are bad. That isn't what they are saying. They are saying that of the urban freeways that were built some failed on their own (New York, San Francisco, Seattle) while others have been torn down (Seoul, Milwaukee, Portland, Toronto, Boston). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:27:58 PM EDT
[#26]
I think throwing out the economic arteries of major cities so we can say "Hey, it's more beautiful now!" is a GREAT idea.
Although in fairness I don't live in a major urban city and I have sadistc streak but that's not at ALL related to my support of this "great idea". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:31:32 PM EDT
[#27]
I'm in favor of not using Federal Highway funds to build commuter roads.
Those should be a State responsibility. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:32:24 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Austin doesn't have a street grid that allows the traffic to fan out. A true street grid has thousands more lane miles available, and can spread the impact of an accident or stalled vehicle out and increase mobility. It turns out that freeways are often slower than surface streets. That, combined with exaggerated numbers of cars and VMTs which are the natural result of urban freeways and you've got a recipe for gridlock. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Look at Austin. the only highway access to downtown is 35. Which sucks the Devil's thorny scrotum. Or you can try to get out via the surface streets to 183 or MoPac or whatever. But the surface streets fill up even faster, the lights suck, there's usually no turning lanes, and when it rains all the LWC's flood. Now they throw in a light rail train that doesn't actually go anywhere, just to fuck with traffic some more. Austin doesn't have a street grid that allows the traffic to fan out. A true street grid has thousands more lane miles available, and can spread the impact of an accident or stalled vehicle out and increase mobility. It turns out that freeways are often slower than surface streets. That, combined with exaggerated numbers of cars and VMTs which are the natural result of urban freeways and you've got a recipe for gridlock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:33:25 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think throwing out the economic arteries of major cities so we can say "Hey, it's more beautiful now!" is a GREAT idea. Although in fairness I don't live in a major urban city and I have sadistc streak but that's not at ALL related to my support of this "great idea". Highways are not the economic arteries of cities. They reduce value and shuffle it out of the city. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:34:18 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even if you were 100% correct (and you may be, I'm no expert at all) you can't really alter the existing street plans in major cities all that much without just knocking EVERYTHING down and rebuilding from scratch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even if you were 100% correct (and you may be, I'm no expert at all) you can't really alter the existing street plans in major cities all that much without just knocking EVERYTHING down and rebuilding from scratch. No, that isn't entirely true. A lot of it just takes time to grow back. Quoted:
I'm in favor of not using Federal Highway funds to build commuter roads. Those should be a State responsibility. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:38:44 PM EDT
[#31]
Removing I345 is a horrifyingly bad idea.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:39:51 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think part of the problem is people trying to use the highways to cut through the city rather than enter it. If you are just going past the city, just use the belt way and go around it. Screw that, I'm not spending three extra hours & the extra gas going around Atlanta. Time is money, beltways are usually time suckers. Columbus and several other cities have the right idea: a couple of essentially through lanes, very limited exits for several miles, and then only to dump you off into the "regular" freeway lanes. Through traffic gets to go through the city and commuters have their lanes to get to the suburbs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:41:03 PM EDT
[#33]
The answer is perimeter highways around cities. Also, way over build infrastructure. Think you need 4 lanes each way? Build 8.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:44:08 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is what they are trying to do in Dallas. http://www.dallasnews.com/incoming/20131027-arts.jpg.ece/BINARY/arts.jpg Related: what about something like the Westway in London; essentially a spur road, high speed, multi-lane, elevated, VERY limited access and designed with the express purpose of moving traffic from the ring road directly into downtown? Unrelated: Is Deep Ellum still a vibrant colorful shithole or has it been gentrified yet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:44:19 PM EDT
[#35]
I am all for it, of course I fucking hate interstates, so it doesn't take much to convince me
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:45:38 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jesus. You could make that shit 10 lanes wide and 3 levels tall and it'd still be a clusterfuck. Unless your goal is to create more condo space for the people stuck in traffic. Related: what about something like the Westway in London; essentially a spur road, high speed, multi-lane, elevated, VERY limited access and designed with the express purpose of moving traffic from the ring road directly into downtown? Unrelated: Is Deep Ellum still a vibrant colorful shithole or has it been gentrified yet? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is what they are trying to do in Dallas. http://www.dallasnews.com/incoming/20131027-arts.jpg.ece/BINARY/arts.jpg Related: what about something like the Westway in London; essentially a spur road, high speed, multi-lane, elevated, VERY limited access and designed with the express purpose of moving traffic from the ring road directly into downtown? Unrelated: Is Deep Ellum still a vibrant colorful shithole or has it been gentrified yet? It's all turning into high priced gayborhoods. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 5:50:09 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Screw that, I'm not spending three extra hours & the extra gas going around Atlanta. Time is money, beltways are usually time suckers. Columbus and several other cities have the right idea: a couple of essentially through lanes, very limited exits for several miles, and then only to dump you off into the "regular" freeway lanes. Through traffic gets to go through the city and commuters have their lanes to get to the suburbs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think part of the problem is people trying to use the highways to cut through the city rather than enter it. If you are just going past the city, just use the belt way and go around it. Screw that, I'm not spending three extra hours & the extra gas going around Atlanta. Time is money, beltways are usually time suckers. Columbus and several other cities have the right idea: a couple of essentially through lanes, very limited exits for several miles, and then only to dump you off into the "regular" freeway lanes. Through traffic gets to go through the city and commuters have their lanes to get to the suburbs. And what does the city get out of this? Quoted:
The answer is perimeter highways around cities. Also, way over build infrastructure. Think you need 4 lanes each way? Build 8. At $3M-$7M per lane mile that gets expensive. Quoted:
Related: what about something like the Westway in London; essentially a spur road, high speed, multi-lane, elevated, VERY limited access and designed with the express purpose of moving traffic from the ring road directly into downtown? I guess that works for some areas. Not Dallas. Quoted:
Unrelated: Is Deep Ellum still a vibrant colorful shithole or has it been gentrified yet? Bit of both these days. Oak Cliff and Grand Prairie are really getting nicer in the year since I've ben drilling there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 6:14:58 PM EDT
[#38]
I think what we are working towards is public transportation and section 8 housing in your neighborhood. Central planning 21st century style.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 6:25:26 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In Washington state there's only one North-South freeway, I5. And, there's only two general purpose lanes each way that go all of the way through the city! I-5 is a disaster. I-405 that was built to help with that, but it is generally worse than just driving straight through I-5. I can see I-405 from my office, and it is usually stop and go by 2pm each day. It is a disaster.z |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 7:10:06 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think what we are working towards is public transportation and section 8 housing in your neighborhood. Central planning 21st century style. As opposed to the freeways, which were central planning 20th century style? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 7:19:38 PM EDT
[#41]
Careful what you wish for, the replacements will be toll roads.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 7:27:40 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Careful what you wish for, the replacements will be toll roads. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 7:28:24 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is what they are trying to do in Dallas. http://www.dallasnews.com/incoming/20131027-arts.jpg.ece/BINARY/arts.jpg It's a nice liberal plan but what will happen is delays and cost overruns will tank the project ending up with another Dallas slum. Meanwhile, enough money will siphoned off making Dallas city council members really happy, off camera. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 7:34:23 PM EDT
[#44]
"War on Cars".
Pretty much every infrastructure project or residential/commercial development in California has pushed cars, parking and vehicular travel aside in favor of green space, bike paths and hiking trails. Ditto with freeway improvements. There is NO single occupancy lane expansion slated, instead they are opting for HOV/Electric car/mass transit lanes that take 2X the space as regular travel lanes. In addition they are spending gigabucks on HOV only on and off ramps. The baseball stadium in downtown San Diego has NO parking lot, the proposed replacement football stadium is same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 7:42:47 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a nice liberal plan but what will happen is delays and cost overruns will tank the project ending up with another Dallas slum. Meanwhile, enough money will siphoned off making Dallas city council members really happy, off camera. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is what they are trying to do in Dallas. http://www.dallasnews.com/incoming/20131027-arts.jpg.ece/BINARY/arts.jpg It's a nice liberal plan but what will happen is delays and cost overruns will tank the project ending up with another Dallas slum. Meanwhile, enough money will siphoned off making Dallas city council members really happy, off camera. The choices are rebuild the freeway or tear it down, reconnect the streets and sell the rest to developers. Which makes more sense? Quoted:
"War on Cars". Pretty much every infrastructure project or residential/commercial development in California has pushed cars, parking and vehicular travel aside in favor of green space, bike paths and hiking trails. Ditto with freeway improvements. There is NO single occupancy lane expansion slated, instead they are opting for HOV/Electric car/mass transit lanes that take 2X the space as regular travel lanes. In addition they are spending gigabucks on HOV only on and off ramps. The baseball stadium in downtown San Diego has NO parking lot, the proposed replacement football stadium is same. Well, after 70 years of heavily subsidized car travel I guess its a shock to see it swing the other way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 7:49:00 PM EDT
[#46]
Where is i345?
Never heard of it. Txl |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 7:51:57 PM EDT
[#47]
Why do you hate roads, combat_jack?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 7:52:02 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where is i345? Never heard of it. Txl You would most likely recognize it as the stretch of 75 that runs east of downtown and west of Deep Ellum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 7:52:40 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do you hate roads, combat_jack? What gives you that impression? I prefer streets, but roads are a great way to connect places. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 7:53:08 PM EDT
[#50]
I40 in Knoxville is a PITA. The side roads suck and there is only one major alternative route through the city.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
