I-345

User avatar
mhainli
Posts: 166
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: 244
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: 285
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: 2094
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: 2094
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: 285
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: 3540
Joined: 22 Oct 2016 16:33
Location: Dallas

Re: I-345

Postby Tnexster » 07 Sep 2022 15:58


User avatar
longhorn
Posts: 41
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: 104
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: 3190
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: 818
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: 166
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: 1103
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: 104
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: 3190
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: 287
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: 1967
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: 1103
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: 287
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?

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 818
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: I-345

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 24 May 2023 17:51

I-345 decision: Dallas approves TxDOT recommendation to remodel interstate

Dallas has greenlit a Texas Department of Transportation recommendation to remodel Interstate 345 despite calls from some to take another year to keep studying other options.

The Dallas City Council voted 14-0 Wednesday for the state transportation department to move forward with an estimated $1 billion plan of tearing down the 1.4-mile elevated highway that runs between downtown and Deep Ellum and rebuilding it in a below-grade trench with new street overpasses above. It’s referred to as the hybrid option, incorporating elements of other proposals like lowering the roadway or replacing it entirely with more ground-level boulevards. Mayor Eric Johnson was absent during Wednesday’s meeting.

The City Council added several conditions to its support, such as a council committee being briefed by TxDOT on the project’s progress once every six months while its being designed, that TxDOT incorporates city policies and strategies like the racial equity plan and economic development policy into the project, and that the state transit agency study ways to reroute trucks off I-345.

...

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politic ... nterstate/

Tnexster
Posts: 3540
Joined: 22 Oct 2016 16:33
Location: Dallas

Re: I-345

Postby Tnexster » 25 May 2023 12:46

This looks like a complicated project and at least five years minimum before start.

User avatar
homeworld1031tx
Posts: 184
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 12:23
Location: The Village, Dallas

Re: I-345

Postby homeworld1031tx » 25 May 2023 13:07

Any news on how this is going to interact with the I-30 canyon rebuilding? Does the I-30 project include reconstruction of the I-30/I-345 interchange?

One of the most frustrating roadway strethces I've seen in the metro is I-35 from 635 north towards PGBT. That stretch of highway seems to have been under constant construction for the last 10 years. First it was rebuilding the Belt Line Road overpass, and then they added toll lanes, and now they're rebuilding the main line lanes. The frustrating part stems from my view of each project not taking any of the near future projects into account at all, and numerous stretches seem to be getting rebuilt right after construction was completed on them to accomodate the further down the line projects.

I really hope the infrastructure planners on the Canyon project are mindful of what may come down the line with the I-345 rebuild.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 2323
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: I-345

Postby tamtagon » 25 May 2023 19:51

I'm okay with the sunken option. I would rather have reconstructed bridges, but whatever. Just get it done.

User avatar
CTroyMathis
Site Admin
Posts: 838
Joined: 13 Oct 2016 19:51

Re: I-345

Postby CTroyMathis » 25 May 2023 20:14

Well, at least we have guaranteed thread watering for another 12-20 years.

User avatar
I45Tex
Posts: 896
Joined: 26 Jan 2017 05:52

Re: I-345

Postby I45Tex » 26 May 2023 22:06

About the Mill Creek Drainage Relief Tunnel (to be completed 2025 now) it was said that it would improve State Thomas' downstream drainage systems in East Dallas from a 2-year to a 100-year flood capacity readiness. If it is also going to drain I-345 and I-30 canyons now, that capacity readiness number may go right back down again.

User avatar
Redblock
Posts: 244
Joined: 24 Nov 2016 11:15

Re: I-345

Postby Redblock » 24 Jan 2024 19:03

This is somewhat related to the I-345 rebuild.

NCTCOG is calling for input for connecting Downtown, Deep Ellum, and Fair Park.

https://www.facebook.com/10006460432296 ... l/?app=fbl

User avatar
eburress
Posts: 1103
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:13

Re: I-345

Postby eburress » 26 Jan 2024 06:38

Bury or remove all the freeways through there. Bam. Connection accomplished. I wonder what they'll need input on next?

User avatar
wbarch
Posts: 32
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 14:55

Re: I-345

Postby wbarch » 19 Mar 2024 19:15


User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 2323
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: I-345

Postby tamtagon » 19 Mar 2024 20:43

Beautiful engineering. Ridiculous solution.

User avatar
IcedCowboyCoffee
Posts: 331
Joined: 23 Mar 2022 13:22

Re: I-345

Postby IcedCowboyCoffee » 20 Mar 2024 09:38

Well if anyone was curious, the flyover is in essence identical to the one they showed us two years ago except they removed some of the weird concrete caps and re-emphasized that the Carpenter Park "extension" isn't being paid by them.

Carpenter park's future looks bleak.

User avatar
eburress
Posts: 1103
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:13

Re: I-345

Postby eburress » 24 Mar 2024 21:12

What an absolute effing mess. So ridiculously stupid.

User avatar
I45Tex
Posts: 896
Joined: 26 Jan 2017 05:52

Re: I-345

Postby I45Tex » 24 Mar 2024 22:33

During public comment my comment to them was basically that for a grid of all origins and destinations, there is almost always already a better bypass built for travelers to travel than to take I-30 *to* Central or Schepps to your desired destination. Likewise than to take Central or Schepps to I-30 to your destination. And an enormous amount of neighborhood would be unlocked by just letting I-30 cross 345 with no interchange ramps whatsoever, and giving back their four massive corners for urban infill. Cesar Chavez @ I-30 interchange wouldn't be converted to a skatepark this go-round.