I-345

User avatar
mhainli
Posts: 83
Joined: 02 Mar 2017 17:56

Re: I-345

Postby mhainli » 02 Jun 2022 16:01

Hannibal Lecter wrote:
mhainli wrote:The big question I have is why does Hawkins need to cross over I345 to Canton? The severe skew causes clunky bridges that could interfere with 2 possible deck park locations. Hopefully the city will rethink this.


I suspect that this may be to throw a bone to the clueless "re-stitch the street grid" cultists. Since a few blocks of Hawkins and the westmost hundred feet of Swiss Avenue are pretty much the only streets that were actually removed for 345, there aren't many options. Of course even this "re-stitching" is a lie -- Hawkins never extended to Canton/Williams (Williams was the now Canton east of the railroad yards where 345 is now. Ironically, Canton and Williams didn't connect until 345 was built.)

Considering that the DART green line did ten times the damage to the street grid that 345 did, maybe we could get the re-stitchers to start a campaign to get rid of it.....

:-)

Thanks for the history on this. I hope the future deck park’ers and common sensers beat the re-stitchers on some of these wild crossings of 345. Hawkins should end at Elm and traffic can cross over there…

User avatar
Redblock
Posts: 228
Joined: 24 Nov 2016 11:15

Re: I-345

Postby Redblock » 25 Aug 2022 20:48

A coalition of groups wants to stop the plan and study some more.

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... for-i-345/

User avatar
quixomniac
Posts: 284
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 21:24

Re: I-345

Postby quixomniac » 26 Aug 2022 19:17

Redblock wrote:A coalition of groups wants to stop the plan and study some more.

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... for-i-345/


Really? When it became evident in the survey, that most people wanted it trenched and decked, instead of realizing they were in the minority, they will keep trying to delay it to get their way.

And of course it’s DMagazine pushing this. Their bias has always been for removal.

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 2008
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: I-345

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 30 Aug 2022 20:00

quixomniac wrote:
Redblock wrote:A coalition of groups wants to stop the plan and study some more.

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... for-i-345/


Really? When it became evident in the survey, that most people wanted it trenched and decked, instead of realizing they were in the minority, they will keep trying to delay it to get their way.

And of course it’s DMagazine pushing this. Their bias has always been for removal.

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 2008
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: I-345

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 30 Aug 2022 20:02

quixomniac wrote:
Redblock wrote:A coalition of groups wants to stop the plan and study some more.

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... for-i-345/


Really? When it became evident in the survey, that most people wanted it trenched and decked, instead of realizing they were in the minority, they will keep trying to delay it to get their way.

And of course it’s DMagazine pushing this. Their bias has always been for removal.


The trench idea is worse because it expands the freeway. It's literally eating more space than what's currently there.

Personally, I would like them to remove off and ramps and allow it to continue simply as an interchange.

User avatar
quixomniac
Posts: 284
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 21:24

Re: I-345

Postby quixomniac » 01 Sep 2022 18:07

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:
quixomniac wrote:
Redblock wrote:A coalition of groups wants to stop the plan and study some more.

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... for-i-345/


Really? When it became evident in the survey, that most people wanted it trenched and decked, instead of realizing they were in the minority, they will keep trying to delay it to get their way.

And of course it’s DMagazine pushing this. Their bias has always been for removal.


The trench idea is worse because it expands the freeway. It's literally eating more space than what's currently there.

Personally, I would like them to remove off and ramps and allow it to continue simply as an interchange.


Where did you get that information?
According to this diagram for trenching, that’s not accurate.
You can clearly see all the ramps/overpasses sticking out of the footprint of the trench.
Sure trench is not the same as removal when it comes to footprint. But its a definite improvement to what is there.
Not to mention how much easier it is to activate land immediately next to the highway when it is a trench vs. an elevated highway.
4770437A-6C69-41EB-BB3F-3AFB81B55447.jpeg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Tnexster
Posts: 3240
Joined: 22 Oct 2016 16:33
Location: Dallas

Re: I-345

Postby Tnexster » 07 Sep 2022 15:58