I-345

User avatar
quixomniac
Posts: 292
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 21:24

Re: I-345

Post by quixomniac »

The_Overdog wrote:The number of cars that pass through is almost completely irrelevant though. It's not '180,000 cars passing into downtown from I345' - most are just passing through, and there are other routes they could take. It's a route to jobs up north is not particularly valuable either - if getting people up north is a laudable goal, then they should have built the stupid tollway.

That's why someone in city leadership needs to make this decision - because 'carrying 200,000 cars to points around the city of Dallas' being more vital to the city of Dallas than 'rerouting traffic and opening land near downtown for development' may be true, but no-one has even sort of answered that question.
Actually the number of cars is completely relevant.
That was the point of the video as to whether a highway removal would be successful.
Just because its not valuable to you, doesnt mean it isnt valuable to other people.
Its rather condescending to people in South Dallas, they should just take ANOTHER way up north.
Sure there are plenty of ways, but they will all take longer, and add to a commute, and could overwhelm those routes too.
making their lives more difficult and making living in south dallas less attractive.

Which is something that should be of mind for the City of Dallas, as it is trying to grow southward.
One of the key sells is the commute time to downtown, uptown. medical district, etc is much shorter than say. Far north dallas.
User avatar
The_Overdog
Posts: 724
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 14:55

Re: I-345

Post by The_Overdog »

Actually the number of cars is completely relevant.
That was the point of the video as to whether a highway removal would be successful.
Just because its not valuable to you, doesnt mean it isnt valuable to other people.
Its rather condescending to people in South Dallas, they should just take ANOTHER way up north.
Sure there are plenty of ways, but they will all take longer, and add to a commute, and could overwhelm those routes too.
making their lives more difficult and making living in south dallas less attractive.
Yeah, I'm never going to agree that easing the commute for people in south Dallas to get to north Dallas is going to make south Dallas a 'more attractive' place to live. The numbers speak for themselves. You made it easy for people in the north of downtown to get to the north - that's where the population is growing. It hasn't worked the past 50 years - it's not going to work the next 50 either.
User avatar
quixomniac
Posts: 292
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 21:24

Re: I-345

Post by quixomniac »

The_Overdog wrote:
Actually the number of cars is completely relevant.
That was the point of the video as to whether a highway removal would be successful.
Just because its not valuable to you, doesnt mean it isnt valuable to other people.
Its rather condescending to people in South Dallas, they should just take ANOTHER way up north.
Sure there are plenty of ways, but they will all take longer, and add to a commute, and could overwhelm those routes too.
making their lives more difficult and making living in south dallas less attractive.
Yeah, I'm never going to agree that easing the commute for people in south Dallas to get to north Dallas is going to make south Dallas a 'more attractive' place to live. The numbers speak for themselves. You made it easy for people in the north of downtown to get to the north - that's where the population is growing. It hasn't worked the past 50 years - it's not going to work the next 50 either.
The numbers do speak for themselves. Just maybe not the way you want.
180,000 cars per day on I345 meaning it’s not going to be torn down. Too many people use it and need it regardless of the reason.
Just because Dallas has been sprawling north for 50 years, it doesn’t mean it will keep sprawling all the way to Oklahoma. There is a limit.
Growth needs cheaper land, eventually we will run out of it north of Dallas, which means they will look south and east.
If South Dallas isnt attractive to you or you dont care about it or its people, that’s fine. it’s your opinion.
User avatar
mhainli
Posts: 175
Joined: 02 Mar 2017 17:56

Re: I-345

Post by mhainli »

Yes, 180K cars a day is a lot of demand. To think of tearing I-345 down and putting a percentage of the 180K cars on 1 or 2 new traffic/smog choked boulevards and already clogged downtown freeways is nuts. We would be a laughingstock. The reason I-345 was built 55 years ago is to avoid such madness. It provides better freeway to freeway connections for all, keeps through traffic on a freeway and off the local street network sitting at red lights. Better for pedestrians, better for the environment, better for commuters from South Dallas heading north (or from North Dallas heading south), better for drive through traffic from other locations… Tearing I-345 down will put a traffic noose around downtown, not make it more attractive vs suburbs.

The problem I have with the current I-345 proposal is the myriad of cross streets at odd angles over the depressed freeway, leaving little to no room for parks. Is it really necessary to connect ALL of those streets??
User avatar
LuvBigD
Posts: 24
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 08:14

Re: I-345

Post by LuvBigD »

mhainli wrote:The problem I have with the current I-345 proposal is the myriad of cross streets at odd angles over the depressed freeway, leaving little to no room for parks. Is it really necessary to connect ALL of those streets??
I definitely don't think it's necessary to have all of those streets crossing over the depressed freeway. And especially disagree with having Cesar Chavez running over the middle of the depression. Get rid of all that mess and it will lessen the cost of construction and possibly free up some money for those deck parks that a lot of people want.
User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 2337
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: I-345

Post by tamtagon »

I prefer the overpass, I like having a separation between the parts of town. The grids can be repaired with longer spans, perhaps even a world class signature series of suspension starchitecture.
User avatar
quixomniac
Posts: 292
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 21:24

Re: I-345

Post by quixomniac »

LuvBigD wrote:
mhainli wrote:The problem I have with the current I-345 proposal is the myriad of cross streets at odd angles over the depressed freeway, leaving little to no room for parks. Is it really necessary to connect ALL of those streets??
I definitely don't think it's necessary to have all of those streets crossing over the depressed freeway. And especially disagree with having Cesar Chavez running over the middle of the depression. Get rid of all that mess and it will lessen the cost of construction and possibly free up some money for those deck parks that a lot of people want.

The only reason they have cesar chavez running around the middle is because its the easiest for them in terms of less paper work. less land that is needed to be acquired for ROW. Its so convoluted, it looks like an engineer threw up on their keyboard .
IMG_4450.png
I much prefer the original Citymap version which has Cesar chavez split into two as service roads along the sides of the highway.
My other issue is with Hawkins running down the center on the left for no reason.
IMG_4451.jpeg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
LuvBigD
Posts: 24
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 08:14

Re: I-345

Post by LuvBigD »

I probably could do a better job designing this rebuild as compared to what they have presented so far
User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 832
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: I-345

Post by Hannibal Lecter »

Cesar Chavez is a crucial gateway into downtown. Keep in mind that it was North Central/US-75 prior to the construction of I-345. Take it out and the East Quarter development is in a world of hurt. It, or a functional replacement, need to go somewhere.

What is labeled Hawkins on the map is actually the almogomation of Hawkins north of Swiss, Jett Way between Pacific and Elm, and the new portion south of Elm. While the section north of Elm is required to access existing buildings, I agree with quixomniac that there really doesn't appear to be a need for the southern section.
User avatar
LuvBigD
Posts: 24
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 08:14

Re: I-345

Post by LuvBigD »

I am not suggesting to take all CC out just the part that runs over the middle of the trench. I'm sure if TxDot got creative they could come up with some exits entrances from/to the main I345 lanes that wouldn't interfere with the deck parks and stop this latest design from turning into a convoluted mess
Post Reply