DPatel304 wrote:I haven't heard any updates about I-345 in a while. I used to be in the 'tear it down' camp, but now I'm pretty on board with keeping it.
It would be nice if it were possible to 'skinny' it up a little bit, sell some of the excess land to developers, and make the area underneath the highway much more pedestrian friendly (it's not half bad at the moment, honestly).
Parker Road wrote:The freeway does have a stronger "keep it" argument than others in question across the country because it isn't just a stub-end, it connects I-45 with the rest of the city, and it helps poorer residents in South Dallas commute to jobs to the North. Such is reality in an extremely sprawling area like DFW. The question is, do we need to continue to feed this sprawl or will we mitigate it? A 60-foot wide exitless viaduct with 11-foot lanes is a reasonable stopgap because such a reduction won't induce demand and improves the pedestrian environment. But I'd hate to see exorbitant money spent on burying/tunneling the same amount of lanes — I'd rather see the money spent elsewhere on things that strengthen transportation and development within the city center rather than encouraging even more travel away from it.
dallaz wrote:Initially, I was for the teardown of 345. Now I believe, a tunnel or something below grade would be a healthy compromise between both sides. Yes, it’s more expensive. But it’s also gives more opportunities to restitch some of the street grid. 345 may not sit by a large body of water or really anything geographically noteworthy, but I do believe the area would benefit from a below grade 345. Mainly, due to where it’s located. (Now, if 345 was nowhere near the core of Dallas...I would not be for a nontraditional option) I could be totally wrong, but I do believe it is something that should be considered.
northsouth wrote:An overpass has the advantage that the land underneath is by default usable (if gloomy), unlike a trench where the deck has to be added. I think a reduced overpass that is just the through lanes with no exits is viable, maybe stacked double-decker style to minimize footprint.
Tivo_Kenevil wrote:That modified footprint was one of the options presented in the City Map studies of I recall correctly (image)
Parker Road wrote:Tivo_Kenevil wrote:That modified footprint was one of the options presented in the City Map studies of I recall correctly (image)
Oh man, the empty median in that image is still huge. If they go for the 4-lane elevated option they need to make it one narrow viaduct with a jersey barrier to preserve space. That means the Good-Latimer exit needs to be reconfigured or removed — but that area is horribly designed by 2020 standards anyway.
Hannibal Lecter wrote:So you want to route traffic going from Woodall Rodgers to East Dallas and Deep Ellum along a winding path of downtown streets through downtown and the Arts District? You really want to dump all that thru traffic onto downtown streets?
Actually, I've taken that route more than a few times. And it sucks. Of the four main routes from southbound I-35E to Deep Ellum (I-35E to Commerce, I-35E to I-30 frontage to Cesar Chavez to Commerce, I-35E to Woodall Rodgers to I-45 to I-30 to Second Avenue) it's one of the worst. Surprisingly, outside of the heart of rush hour the Second Avenue route is usually the best.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests