I-345

User avatar
mhainli
Posts: 95
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: 232
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: 2017
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: 2017
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: 3255
Joined: 22 Oct 2016 16:33
Location: Dallas

Re: I-345

Postby Tnexster » 07 Sep 2022 15:58


User avatar
longhorn
Posts: 39
Joined: 13 Jul 2017 14:21

Re: I-345

Postby longhorn » 20 Oct 2022 09:49

https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects ... 15-19.html

Note to self avoid this stretch for the next five years.

User avatar
dzh
Posts: 84
Joined: 14 Dec 2016 20:24

Re: I-345

Postby dzh » 21 Oct 2022 22:52

I'm part of "Team Tear It Down." I truly believe that traffic will get rerouted and it's closure will only significantly help Downtown and Deep Ellum.

cowboyeagle05
Posts: 3166
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 08:45
Location: Dallas

Re: I-345

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 24 Oct 2022 12:28

Same.
“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell”

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 737
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: I-345

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 24 Oct 2022 22:09

dzh wrote:I'm part of "Team Tear It Down." I truly believe that traffic will get rerouted and it's closure will only significantly help Downtown and Deep Ellum.


Yeah, adding tens of thousands of cars a day on the street grid will work wonders for the neighborhood.

Of course with the impending plan to castrate Commerce and Elm down to one lane each direction it's going to be gridlock all day anyway, so I guess it really won't matter.

User avatar
mhainli
Posts: 95
Joined: 02 Mar 2017 17:56

Re: I-345

Postby mhainli » 03 Nov 2022 17:42

Hannibal Lecter wrote:
dzh wrote:I'm part of "Team Tear It Down." I truly believe that traffic will get rerouted and it's closure will only significantly help Downtown and Deep Ellum.


Yeah, adding tens of thousands of cars a day on the street grid will work wonders for the neighborhood.

Of course with the impending plan to castrate Commerce and Elm down to one lane each direction it's going to be gridlock all day anyway, so I guess it really won't matter.

I think the “team tear it down” folks need to push for tear downs on the highways they use the most. Let’s see how they enjoy the “rerouting” thing.

User avatar
eburress
Posts: 1014
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:13

Re: I-345

Postby eburress » 04 Nov 2022 16:50

It's fantastic driving...and walking, living, etc...around cities where highways have been removed. The "we can't live without our highways" people should visit some of these places.

User avatar
dzh
Posts: 84
Joined: 14 Dec 2016 20:24

Re: I-345

Postby dzh » 06 Nov 2022 22:59

mhainli wrote:
Hannibal Lecter wrote:
dzh wrote:I'm part of "Team Tear It Down." I truly believe that traffic will get rerouted and it's closure will only significantly help Downtown and Deep Ellum.


Yeah, adding tens of thousands of cars a day on the street grid will work wonders for the neighborhood.

Of course with the impending plan to castrate Commerce and Elm down to one lane each direction it's going to be gridlock all day anyway, so I guess it really won't matter.

I think the “team tear it down” folks need to push for tear downs on the highways they use the most. Let’s see how they enjoy the “rerouting” thing.


I use Highway 183 the most, I'd be more than happy to see it torn down (even though it's tear down would not lead to nearly as much economic development as tearing down I-45). In my dream world, the highways in Dallas would be replaced (or have some lanes removed) for S-Bahns and Rail Rapid Transit. I know damn well that TXDOT would never allow something like this however.

cowboyeagle05
Posts: 3166
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 08:45
Location: Dallas

Re: I-345

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 09 Nov 2022 18:59

I use it all the time to run to Garland from Uptown. Tear it down. I'll take one of the 50 other routes to get there.
“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell”

User avatar
potatocoins
Posts: 243
Joined: 18 May 2021 14:01

Re: I-345

Postby potatocoins » 10 Nov 2022 10:18

eburress wrote:It's fantastic driving...and walking, living, etc...around cities where highways have been removed. The "we can't live without our highways" people should visit some of these places.


Lol, it's not like people don't already know this.

The argument is over if the repercussions of removing a highway are worth it or not. We can't just ignore the negative repercussions and assume less highways is always better.

User avatar
R1070
Posts: 1499
Joined: 26 Oct 2016 21:00

Re: I-345

Postby R1070 » 10 Nov 2022 10:50

potatocoins wrote:
eburress wrote:It's fantastic driving...and walking, living, etc...around cities where highways have been removed. The "we can't live without our highways" people should visit some of these places.


Lol, it's not like people don't already know this.

The argument is over if the repercussions of removing a highway are worth it or not. We can't just ignore the negative repercussions and assume less highways is always better.


Removing the highway would benefit the affected area, but it would not be good for the overall region. I'd be fine with the burying plan if there's a way to support structures being built on top in some areas. All greenspace doesn't make the best economic sense.

User avatar
eburress
Posts: 1014
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:13

Re: I-345

Postby eburress » 10 Nov 2022 12:00

^ I'd also be fine with burying the freeway in a way to allow for construction above.

Fwiw, I don't believe the assumed or perceived negative regional effects are objective fact. I've seen enough studies suggesting there were little to no negative regional effects on freeway removal.

User avatar
potatocoins
Posts: 243
Joined: 18 May 2021 14:01

Re: I-345

Postby potatocoins » 10 Nov 2022 12:13

I don't think anyone thinks they are objective fact either though. The disagreement on the removal just comes from people not agreeing on what impact it will have and whether or not it would be worth it.

I wonder if these studies are looking to the long term. DFW is already struggling to grow and develop towards the south, so would removing I-345 just stifle southern growth even more going forward?