I-345

DPatel304
Posts: 2048
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49
Location: Turtle Creek

Re: I-345

Postby DPatel304 » 08 Dec 2020 10:29

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).

User avatar
TNWE
Posts: 348
Joined: 03 May 2017 09:42

Re: I-345

Postby TNWE » 08 Dec 2020 15:43

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).


Agreed - Eliminating the Elm/Main/Commerce connectors to I-30 and the "fly-arounds" that were built to alleviate the weaving needed for non-local traffic connecting between I-30 and I-345 would free up a lot of space. They could basically route all Downtown local traffic to/from I-30 and points south over the North/South arterials (Griffin/Akard/Ervay/Harwood/Cesar Chavez), rather than everyone trying to take Elm/Commerce to 345 to 30.

User avatar
Parker Road
Posts: 40
Joined: 01 Jun 2019 18:19
Location: Plano → New Jersey

Re: I-345

Postby Parker Road » 12 Dec 2020 11:33

I'll echo that the main issue is that it's just too damn wide. TxDOT building roads as obnoxiously as possible is nothing new, but I-345 stands out through its blatant disregard for the street grid in the historically minority neighborhoods it cuts through. It forces over 2 blocks of nothingness along Elm/Main/Commerce sidewalks, and attempting to cross under it at any other point is even worse. Saying the crossing is "not that bad" is being generous.

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.

User avatar
quixomniac
Posts: 280
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 21:24

Re: I-345

Postby quixomniac » 12 Dec 2020 16:53

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.


I agree with the stopgap, for the South Dallas reasoning and pedestrian benefits. But also because I just dont see this city with all its bickering taking on such a huge endeavor and not messing it up. Still havent done anything with Trinity river, or D2. Whatever the solution, it needs to happen within the next 5 years or it will hamstring the momentum going between Deep ellum and the East Quarter.

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 1979
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: I-345

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 12 Dec 2020 18:18

I'd rather trench and cover i-35 than 345

User avatar
dallaz
Posts: 518
Joined: 26 Oct 2016 14:50

Re: I-345

Postby dallaz » 18 Dec 2020 10:14

I would love to see Dallas do this.

It maybe more expensive...but it’s a better alternative IMO. I’d even be down for a cut and cover...

https://youtu.be/zUvF0nDwTo4
https://youtu.be/LBfvEb0HbYg

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 719
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: I-345

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 18 Dec 2020 13:40

^ $3.3 billion and ten years to complete.

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 366
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: I-345

Postby electricron » 19 Dec 2020 00:52

Seattle's Alaska Way Viaduct was about to fall down, was a hazard on the last earthquake, and would probably self demolish itself with the next earthquake.

I-345 in comparison is in much better shape, is not in an earthquake zone, is not about to self demolish itself with the next tornado, and does not block the Gulf of Mexico views from downtown Dallas skyscrapers like the the Alaska Way Viaduct blocked views of Puget Sound.

Even so, while tearing down the Alaska Way Viaduct, Seattle did more than just build a tunnel underground, they also rebuilt Alaska Way at grade level too. There is just as much traffic now at grade and below grade along Alaska Way as there was before on the viaduct. They did not reroute traffic, they just changed how the traffic moved through the same locale.

Those suggesting tearing down I-345 have not made proposals on how to handle the same amount of traffic through the same locale; both local traffic into and out of downtown, and long distance traffic that wishes to bypass downtown. Instead, they have made proposals that would create massive traffic jams and gridlock in every compass points around downtown.

User avatar
Tucy
Posts: 1250
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 12:50

Re: I-345

Postby Tucy » 19 Dec 2020 14:33

^ TRUTH

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 719
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: I-345

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 19 Dec 2020 15:03

^ Amen.

cowboyeagle05
Posts: 3036
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 08:45
Location: Dallas

Re: I-345

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 21 Dec 2020 11:03

Umm there have been proposals made how to handle the traffic but the disagreement is on how realistic those solutions are. To very over simplify the two camps one side says Traffic will detour and dissipate the other says that's ridiculous and that poor people will lose their jobs. Its easy to say the other side offers no solutions when you refuse to accept the other sides solutions because it doesn't fit your expectations.
“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell”

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 719
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: I-345

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 21 Dec 2020 12:57

What solutions have the tear down proponents offered other than "everything will just work out"?

User avatar
dallaz
Posts: 518
Joined: 26 Oct 2016 14:50

Re: I-345

Postby dallaz » 22 Dec 2020 17:35

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.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 2120
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: I-345

Postby tamtagon » 22 Dec 2020 17:57

I still don't mind the physical separation that comes with an overpass.

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 366
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: I-345

Postby electricron » 22 Dec 2020 18:06

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.

So what would you do with I-30?
I just wanted to remind people that I-30 is already 25 feet below grade in an open ditch. All the city streets crossing above it are at grade level. For I-345 to tunnel under I-30, it would have to be at least 50 feet below grade - if not deeper. How would you then make ramps, especially for the left turners, for the i-30 to i-345 intersection? Under I-345 another 25 feet, or would you prefer lowering I-345 the additional 25 feet. Now it is at least 75 feet below grade.
Has anyone actually taken the time to realize how smart the highway engineers were back in the 1960s when they designed this intersection?
They were not fools!

Then consider this, DART’s light rail lines under Central Expressway is however deep the new tunneled i-345 would have to be under i-30. Then imagine having tunneled on and off ramps for the new intersection with I-30 at its existing grade. The at grade level would have the new avenue for local traffic. Would it have an intersection with on and off ramps to I-30? It is going to get messy really quickly. Guess what, that mess was solved in the 1960s when they designed the existing i-345 viaducts and its on and off ramps. It basically has worked successfully for 50 years. Why fix what is not broken? I suggest keep repairing and refurbishing it to last another 50 years, or until it fails to do the job adequately, like the Alaska Way Viaduct in Seattle failed.

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 1979
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: I-345

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 22 Dec 2020 21:49

The on ramps for i345 are horrible at street level; i wouldn't give engineers that much credit... I345 wouldnt be so bad if it was just an over pass. But it's not...

Tnexster
Posts: 3218
Joined: 22 Oct 2016 16:33
Location: Dallas

Re: I-345

Postby Tnexster » 22 Dec 2020 22:10

tamtagon wrote:I still don't mind the physical separation that comes with an overpass.


Ditto

User avatar
northsouth
Posts: 127
Joined: 26 Oct 2016 18:59

Re: I-345

Postby northsouth » 22 Dec 2020 22:43

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.

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 1979
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: I-345

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 23 Dec 2020 00:35

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.

That modified footprint was one of the options presented in the City Map studies of I recall correctly
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Parker Road
Posts: 40
Joined: 01 Jun 2019 18:19
Location: Plano → New Jersey

Re: I-345

Postby Parker Road » 23 Dec 2020 09:03

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.

User avatar
TNWE
Posts: 348
Joined: 03 May 2017 09:42

Re: I-345

Postby TNWE » 07 Jan 2021 12:39

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.


This is where I chime in to say Left Exits are Good, Actually. Yes, I know that the rules of the road say that the leftmost lane is for passing, and that highway design guidance has called for entrance/exit ramps on the right for decades, but when we're looking at urban freeways, all those rules need to be thrown out. Onramps should be on one side, and offramps on the other, with signage and a "point of no return" well away from the actual exit (so you don't have people using highways to skip traffic lights, recklessly cut across multiple lanes, or weave in and out of exit-only lanes in an attempt to beat traffic).

In the case of the Good-Latimer exit, there's zero reason someone would need to go from Woodall Rodgers -> 345 -> Good Latimer (they can exit Olive, then use surface streets to Routh), so moving that exit to the right side introduces another point of conflict as traffic from southbound 75 needs to weave with traffic entering from the access roads and 366. As it is, southbound 75 traffic knows as far back as Lemmon that they need to be in the Leftmost lane for the Good-Latimer exit, and ideally any 345 redesign would make Ross a left exit as well.

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 719
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: I-345

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 07 Jan 2021 19:22

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.

My concept:

- Add a barrier to block southbound traffic from the Live Oak exit. They can take the left exit. This removes a lot of weaving at the Woodall Rodgers merger.

- Continue to allow Woodall Rodgers traffic to exit at Live Oak, but straighten the ramp to a standard T-intersection at Live Oak. This frees up the land, and makes for an easy left-hand turn onto Live Oak for Woodall Rodgers traffic going to East Dallas or Deep Ellum.

- Re-stripe the southbound NCX exit to downtown/Good-Latimer to allow the second inside lane to optionally exit or continue onto I-345. No new pavement needed; just re-stripe it. This discourages the asses who stay in the left lane to the last second, then block traffic waiting to cut in to the right, plus makes it easier on the surprising number of people who enter the freeway southbound from Haskell then have to merge all the way over to the left lane to get to the G-L exit.

User avatar
TNWE
Posts: 348
Joined: 03 May 2017 09:42

Re: I-345

Postby TNWE » 08 Jan 2021 09:09

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.



The Olive off-ramp puts drivers at the Woodall Rodgers NB frontage, and from there it's two right turns to get on Routh towards Deep Ellum. The route around using I-35E-> I-30 is another option, which is generally more free-flowing than Woodall and relieves pressure on the 35E to Woodall ramps that frequently back up onto the main lanes.

If someone is trying to get from Uptown/West End to Deep Ellum, there's just no reason to hop on the freeway, but so long as there are possible routes, GPS apps will tell people to get on the freeway for a very short trip to save a minute or two, at the expense of making congestion worse for everyone else on the road.

I'm definitely not reflexively anti-freeway, but they should be designed in a way that discourages ultra-short trips.

User avatar
Rangers100
Posts: 5
Joined: 31 Aug 2017 09:53

Re: I-345

Postby Rangers100 » 23 Mar 2021 12:02

Hannibal Lecter wrote:What solutions have the tear down proponents offered other than "everything will just work out"?


1) You might not agree with the solution, but they've shown many examples of how many comparable highway tearouts have been done elsewhere. The specific road changes for Dallas would need to be worked out (I'm sure more of this has been done by others), but there's nothing magical about I-345 or the local road network.

2) Sometimes the solution to something is to just stop doing it. If banging your head against the wall is causing your head to ache, just stop doing that and everything will just work out from there. Like making a city core-crushing highway an avenue.

User avatar
TNWE
Posts: 348
Joined: 03 May 2017 09:42

Re: I-345

Postby TNWE » 23 Mar 2021 12:34

Rangers100 wrote:
Hannibal Lecter wrote:What solutions have the tear down proponents offered other than "everything will just work out"?


1) You might not agree with the solution, but they've shown many examples of how many comparable highway tearouts have been done elsewhere. The specific road changes for Dallas would need to be worked out (I'm sure more of this has been done by others), but there's nothing magical about I-345 or the local road network.

2) Sometimes the solution to something is to just stop doing it. If banging your head against the wall is causing your head to ache, just stop doing that and everything will just work out from there. Like making a city core-crushing highway an avenue.


Rather than claiming things will "just work out" - let's have a public referendum where all the stakeholders who vote "yes" on removal get put on a list, and should the referendum pass, they'll be assessed a special "transportation impact fee" in the ballpark of $5-10k a year that goes towards paying for all the mitigation and improvement projects that would be required, up to and including cash subsidies to the people who can't just take DART or bike to work because their work tools are drills and saws (not MacBooks and crayons), and the places they go to do their work changes from day to day or week to week (not a fixed office like the journalists, architects, and political types who seem to make up the bulk of 345 removal proponents).

If a utilitarian piece of public infrastructure offends your aesthetic sensibilities, YOU can ante up the cash to change it - just don't drag the rest of us into paying for it...

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 366
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: I-345

Postby electricron » 23 Mar 2021 22:08

Rangers100 wrote:
Hannibal Lecter wrote:What solutions have the tear down proponents offered other than "everything will just work out"?


1) You might not agree with the solution, but they've shown many examples of how many comparable highway tearouts have been done elsewhere. The specific road changes for Dallas would need to be worked out (I'm sure more of this has been done by others), but there's nothing magical about I-345 or the local road network.

2) Sometimes the solution to something is to just stop doing it. If banging your head against the wall is causing your head to ache, just stop doing that and everything will just work out from there. Like making a city core-crushing highway an avenue.


I can recall just as many through freeways not built or torn down where the economy of the local area completely died. Memphis, D.C., and Baltimore being a few examples where the economy soured.
1) Memphis 1970 population was 623,530, today it is 651,011. Not building I-40 through town may or may not be the cause of poor growth over 50 years.
2) D.C. population in 1970 was 756,510, today it is 712,816. Not building I-95 through its northern neighborhoods may or may not be the cause of negative growth. Much of the growth within the D.C. metro is in Maryland and Virginia suburbs where the freeways and tollways were built.
3) Baltimore population in 1970 was 905,759, today it is 575,584. Not building I-70 through its' western neighborhoods may or may not be the cause of negative population growth.

In all three cases, where the freeways were not built population decreased or barely increased over 50 years.

Now let's compare that to the City of Dallas. In 1970 Dallas population was 844,401, today it is 1,343,573 (2019 data from wiki). The City of Dallas grew by 59.1%.
Math = 1,343,573 / 844,401 = 1.59115

Was it just the decision not building a freeway that made the difference, or the economic business climate those and other decisions made by the local city leaders that affected growth, and where that growth occurred.

There are consequences for every action that may affect the local economy decades or scores in the future.

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 719
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: I-345

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 24 Mar 2021 11:01

Rangers100 wrote:1) You might not agree with the solution, but they've shown many examples of how many comparable highway tearouts have been done elsewhere.


OK, so provide an example of "comparable highway tearouts" -- because nothing at that link is comparable. One thing I learned a long time ago is that anyone who tries to use the Embarcadero as a role model is totally clueless. It was a long exit ramp dumping traffic into city streets, not a major Interstate highway carrying a quarter million vehicles a day.

Actually, if you want to see our local equivalent look at https://goo.gl/maps/M4bocwHEJhHVo2bDA. No, not I-345 to the right. The downtown exit in the left lane. That's our of the Embarcadero.

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 719
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: I-345

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 24 Mar 2021 11:05

TNWE wrote:Rather than claiming things will "just work out" - let's have a public referendum where all the stakeholders who vote "yes" on removal get put on a list, and should the referendum pass, they'll be assessed a special "transportation impact fee" in the ballpark of $5-10k a year that goes towards paying for all the mitigation and improvement projects that would be required, up to and including cash subsidies to the people who can't just take DART or bike to work because their work tools are drills and saws (not MacBooks and crayons), and the places they go to do their work changes from day to day or week to week (not a fixed office like the journalists, architects, and political types who seem to make up the bulk of 345 removal proponents).


You would probably have no problem finding suburban real estate developers ready to pony up the cash. They have to be salivating at the idea of Dallas shooting itself in the foot and surrounding downtown with near perpetual gridlock.

User avatar
LPG
Posts: 66
Joined: 27 Mar 2017 20:30

Re: I-345

Postby LPG » 15 Apr 2021 15:35

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

Now, full disclosure: the report is also dedicated to the memory of the late Wick Allison, the founder of D Magazine, who had been a champion of the I-345 project since Kennedy first raised the possibility in our pages. The Coalition for a New Dallas, an organization co-founded by Wick, is also a driving force behind the completion of the “Framework Plan,” and tomorrow the Coalition is hosting an online symposium that will both present this new plan and outline its policy priorities heading into this May’s city council elections.


Cue long term Dallasites, without any type of formal traffic engineering education, whinging with anecdotal evidence now.

User avatar
quixomniac
Posts: 280
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 21:24

Re: I-345

Postby quixomniac » 15 Apr 2021 21:05

LPG wrote:https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2021/04/a-new-plan-for-tearing-down-i-345/
Cue long term Dallasites, without any type of formal traffic engineering education, whinging with anecdotal evidence now.


I'm a long term Dallasite :D , that while not being a traffic engineer, I am an engineer used to reading long technical reports that hide flaws in fluffy renderings and emotional pandering.

Where to begin? Lets start with the mixmaster, loop of highways choking downtown, of which I345 is one leg of. The report and article focuses on I345, how replacing a highway with surface level streets moving traffic at 40 mph will function exactly how the highway used to moving at 40 mph. but that is myopic. shortsighted, ignoring the differences between highways and streets.

First. I edited one of their pictures to demonstrate how I345 as part of the loop adds system level redundancy. I base this on my usage experience. When I lived there, I would take I45 to Parkland or Lovefield, two time sensitive travels, whereby if there is traffic in the I30 trench, I can just take I345 and woodall to I35 to Lovefield/Parkland. Redundancy! this works in various ways, coming from north dallas, oak cliff, East Dallas. etc. Without I345, you will be funneled onto the streets using highway exits that are not designed to carry that much traffic volume, and you will get stuck on the remaining highways if anything happens on the remainder of the loop! IMO, this is why traffic is so BAD in Austin.
If you are stuck on the MOPAC or I35, YOU ARE STUCK!!!!
IMG_0348.JPG


If you disregard function, you can't just take traffic numbers from one type of system (highway) and use them to make predictions of equivalent traffic moving at 40 mph on the street. Now looking strictly at street traffic. Every. Single. Intersection. Is another potential chokepoint. Highways allow you to bypass them, allowing for steady 40 mph traffic. Streets do not. Additionally there is now the risk of accidents with left turns in particular, in addition to pedestrians and cyclists.

Next. The article and report make no qualms about hiding their bias. They are FOR street level and only present I345 trench option as a straw man. They hide the benefit of loop redundancy with the trench, assume NO deck parks will be built, b/c they are "expensive" and require maintenance, which completely undermines the trench side because deck parks are a popular idea. They argue that while trench option will open up adjacent property for development, the shapes will be "irregular" and be less VALUABLE when compared to the street option. :roll:

And that is what it is all about. Real Estate Value. Everything is about getting the most $$$ for the existing landowners who are probably part of the Coalition just like the Trinity Parkway/Conservatory crowd. At the same time they shove the race card down everyone's throats, completely oblivious of the fact that NOBODY who doesnt work an office job will be able to afford the rent. Unless they include a substantial amount of units with subsidized rents for minorities, do not take their restoring black deep ellum argument seriously.

Also, roundabouts? seriously? I know they are more efficient at moving traffic in Europe. but here? They want to abruptly cut off I45 here and think the incoming 18 wheelers will be just fine on a roundabout?
IMG_0349.jpg


Anyways, I will wait for the TXDOT report, hoping for a more serious conversation about traffic management. Until then, its Trench or leave it alone for me.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 1979
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: I-345

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 16 Apr 2021 14:07

quixomniac wrote:
I'm a long term Dallasite :D , that while not being a traffic engineer, I am an engineer used to reading long technical reports that hide flaws in fluffy renderings and emotional pandering.



Perhaps, your fluff reading abilities are good. But perhaps your road progrnasatcations are shite too. You're not a traffic engineer as you say after all.

I'll say this, after hearing Micheal Morris, NTCOGs Headhancho,(Yes, the same pro-highway guy who wanted to build a highway through uptown) thoughts on this project today....


It seems like NTCOG & TxDOT are taking removing this highway very serious and it is a very real possiblity...perhaps it's not farfetched or bias as you make it seem.

I highly doubt Lord Voldemort Morris, an unelected official, pro-highway dude, would even be supportive of this if it was a pipe dream.

Not sure what the hell he gets outta supporting this project... But somehow he is... Maybe he's getting a kickback or this not as not far fetched as it seems.

My theory is TxDOT cares more about having reasons to do something, than actually alleviating traffic.

They've failed at traffic relief for years now. Always rehashing the same expansion ideas....

They care about their jobs.. so I could see them going with tearing it down just to have something else to do and they can point to created jobs/ economic impact! look we did something!

User avatar
quixomniac
Posts: 280
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 21:24

Re: I-345

Postby quixomniac » 16 Apr 2021 18:43

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:They care about their jobs.. so I could see them going with tearing it down just to have something else to do and they can point to created jobs/ economic impact! look we did something!


Fair is fair, I am not a traffic engineer, and I did just use an anecdote to present my case. :mrgreen:

Morris and TXDOT could just be playing the long game. Make a mess of traffic, induce demand for the new and improved Trinity Parkway 2 Fast 2 Furious. Not only do they get to tear I345 down, they also get to build the Trinity Riverfront parkway! Twice the work, twice the money. :lol:
I noticed they used Riverfront instead of Trinity Parkway like they did in CityMAP.
Their planned extension runs parallel to the previous plans.

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 1979
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: I-345

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 16 Apr 2021 23:00

quixomniac wrote:
Tivo_Kenevil wrote:They care about their jobs.. so I could see them going with tearing it down just to have something else to do and they can point to created jobs/ economic impact! look we did something!


Fair is fair, I am not a traffic engineer, and I did just use an anecdote to present my case. :mrgreen:

Morris and TXDOT could just be playing the long game. Make a mess of traffic, induce demand for the new and improved Trinity Parkway 2 Fast 2 Furious. Not only do they get to tear I345 down, they also get to build the Trinity Riverfront parkway! Twice the work, twice the money. :lol:
I noticed they used Riverfront instead of Trinity Parkway like they did in CityMAP.
Their planned extension runs parallel to the previous plans.


I wouldn't be surprised man.. I don't even know what to believe with the Trinity Project

User avatar
TNWE
Posts: 348
Joined: 03 May 2017 09:42

Re: I-345

Postby TNWE » 19 Apr 2021 20:50

quixomniac wrote:Next. The article and report make no qualms about hiding their bias. They are FOR street level and only present I345 trench option as a straw man. They hide the benefit of loop redundancy with the trench, assume NO deck parks will be built, b/c they are "expensive" and require maintenance, which completely undermines the trench side because deck parks are a popular idea. They argue that while trench option will open up adjacent property for development, the shapes will be "irregular" and be less VALUABLE when compared to the street option. :roll:

And that is what it is all about. Real Estate Value. Everything is about getting the most $$$ for the existing landowners who are probably part of the Coalition just like the Trinity Parkway/Conservatory crowd. At the same time they shove the race card down everyone's throats, completely oblivious of the fact that NOBODY who doesnt work an office job will be able to afford the rent. Unless they include a substantial amount of units with subsidized rents for minorities, do not take their restoring black deep ellum argument seriously.


You hit the nail on the head, Quixomaniac. The CND is a real-estate racket masquerading as a "Progressive Urbanism" non-profit advocacy group. They found a "big bad" to blame all of Dallas' shortcomings and failures on, then manufactured a bunch of flimsy studies to convince a bunch of credulous, idealistic people that it could be torn out with zero adverse impacts, and tarred anyone who disagreed as a racist who wants to destroy the planet - all while lining up developers and landowners to cash in on the real estate bonanza.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 2120
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: I-345

Postby tamtagon » 19 Apr 2021 21:58

^one possible outcome is a more sustainable employment center and higher standard of living. The real estate payout could increase downtown area population by thousands. More workers, less travel time, higher concentration of jobs and amenities.

User avatar
quixomniac
Posts: 280
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 21:24

Re: I-345

Postby quixomniac » 19 Apr 2021 23:51

tamtagon wrote:^one possible outcome is a more sustainable employment center and higher standard of living. The real estate payout could increase downtown area population by thousands. More workers, less travel time, higher concentration of jobs and amenities.


All of that would be good, and if I could go back in a time machine, I'd kill Hitler and stop I345 from being built in the first place.

But we have to deal with the reality of today and fix what we already have. The DFW center of gravity has moved north, lots people live in the suburbs and companies HQ are there, Downtown Dallas is on life support, Deep Ellum is no longer the black neighborhood it used to be, and their descendants live in South Dallas, and they work in the North were most jobs are.

We are doing them a disservice by cutting them off from an easy commute North. We are patronizing them telling them that they will get to live in the New Deep Ellum, when it is clear that it will be for Yuppies. Unless subsidized housing comes in the package...

The best thing about Downtown is that it is next to Deep Ellum. It is a vibrant area that attracts enough people to cause traffic jams in of itself (See Good Latimer on a weekend) We can leverage it with Dart, Klyde Warren Park, the EMC corridor to attract companies and residents back to Downtown, but only as long as we can allow Deep Ellum to be the vibrant place it is TODAY.

I just dont see how unleashing a tsunami of Thru Traffic onto the Deep Ellum 2-lane streets will preserve its vibrancy. At the rate we were going PreCOVID, it was looking like making parts of Deep Ellum pedestrian only might be a way to go. But that will never happen if it has to handle extra traffic.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 2120
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: I-345

Postby tamtagon » 20 Apr 2021 06:00

How much subsidized housing is in Plano, Frisco, Richardson?

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 366
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: I-345

Postby electricron » 20 Apr 2021 08:46

tamtagon wrote:How much subsidized housing is in Plano, Frisco, Richardson?

You can find a fairly recent answer for Collin County here,
https://www.countyoffice.org/tx-collin- ... thorities/
HUD 3,250 units, Public 200 units, Section 8 337 units
And Dallas County here,
https://www.countyoffice.org/tx-dallas- ... thorities/
HUD 34,090 units, Public 3,010 units, Section 8 4,322 units

Collin County averages less than 10% of what Dallas County has. But it is not zero.

Putting these statistics into perspective, Dallas County has a population of 2.64 million while Collin County has a population of 1.03 million, Dallas County being 256% larger.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 2120
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: I-345

Postby tamtagon » 20 Apr 2021 15:11

Requiring more affordable/subsidized housing in Collin county will aid the workers far more than retaining a highway so poor people from South Dallas can get to a job on Coco....

User avatar
quixomniac
Posts: 280
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 21:24

Re: I-345

Postby quixomniac » 20 Apr 2021 16:32

tamtagon wrote:Requiring more affordable/subsidized housing in Collin county will aid the workers far more than retaining a highway so poor people from South Dallas can get to a job on Coco....


I'm not sure what was the point of deflecting to Collin County (Plano, richardson etc).
When I say the North, it is quite general, can involve medical technicians working in numerous hospitals, airport jobs at DFW or Love field or even seasonal jobs working at AAC. These are things that are not moving any time soon or can be replaced by anticipated growth in Downtown that may or may not come.

But sure lets demand subsidized housing for minorities in Collin County. I'm sure that will go over well. Besides what Dallas people want has no bearing on what Collin County does.
What Dallasites can do for their fellow Dallasites is surely limited to the confines of Dallas itself.

Speaking of detours, back to I345, what will surely come in a literal sense if we tear it out.
Now that we are speaking on the subject, what is so wrong with the trench?
What is the street level option giving you that you can't on some level get from a covered trench?
Other than the personal satisfaction that you tore out a highway.

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 366
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: I-345

Postby electricron » 20 Apr 2021 21:14

quixomniac wrote:Speaking of detours, back to I345, what will surely come in a literal sense if we tear it out.
Now that we are speaking on the subject, what is so wrong with the trench?
What is the street level option giving you that you can't on some level get from a covered trench?
Other than the personal satisfaction that you tore out a highway.

What is so terribly wrong with the existing I-345 viaduct? TXDOT should refurbish it and use it for another 50 years as is, imho.

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 1979
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: I-345

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 20 Apr 2021 21:29

electricron wrote:What is so terribly wrong with the existing I-345 viaduct? TXDOT should refurbish it and use it for another 50 years as is, imho.


It's over engineered imo and needlessly large. Why can't TxDOT at least try to make good designs? Go Look up how elegantly Urban overpasses are done elsewhere. And how they're purposely designed NOT to eat an entire portion of a city/space.. kentucky of all places has some great examples of Double Deck highway overpasses designed not to be intrusive and an eyesore. If a highway is to be built THROUGH a city, the city should have a say in how it executed. It should be redesigned completely imo with strong input from the city planners.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
quixomniac
Posts: 280
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 21:24

Re: I-345

Postby quixomniac » 20 Apr 2021 23:48

electricron wrote:What is so terribly wrong with the existing I-345 viaduct? TXDOT should refurbish it and use it for another 50 years as is, imho.


Aesthetics aside, it is literally falling part. I345 is IMO the portion of the loop that shows the most wear and tear, and if youve ever been stuck in traffic there, you can feel the vibrations of the bridge underneath you. Unless someone can say otherwise, it also looks like they have reinforced some of the columns holding up spans of I345 with some kind of strut/brace? It is past the point of refurbishing it, at this point keeping it up is a waste of money, and it would be cheaper to replace it.
TxDOT has been recommending this. The question is with what?
Screen Shot 2021-04-20 at 10.51.17 PM.png


Outside of the clover leaf, many of the exits/entrances should be eliminated to minimize the footprint of I345, and Deep Ellum become more cohesive. I think a trench does a better job of this, albeit more expensive. and Street proponents think that is an even better option in regards to cohesiveness.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 366
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: I-345

Postby electricron » 20 Apr 2021 23:57

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:It's over engineered imo and needlessly large. Why can't TxDOT at least try to make good designs? Go Look up how elegantly Urban overpasses are done elsewhere. And how they're purposely designed NOT to eat an entire portion of a city/space.. kentucky of all places has some great examples of Double Deck highway overpasses designed not to be intrusive and an eyesore. If a highway is to be built THROUGH a city, the city should have a say in how it executed. It should be redesigned completely imo with strong input from the city planners.

That's quite elegant imho. Double deck highways are not popular everywhere. Seattle tore theirs down because it was ugly and blocked views of the Sound.
As for the City having input, at the time I-345 was built Commerce and Elm Street were designated US Highway routes, US 80 and US 67 at a minimum, and were therefore a part of the State Highway system. Having the State build an exit for their own highways is a no brainer acceptable solution. That is the reason for the width of the right-of-way, having off and on ramps designed not to create cars and trucks changing 3 lanes of traffic to get where it wants to go. The design -as is- is very elegant, and functional to boot.
All three, Commerce, Main, and Elm are not blocked by the freeway. Compare that to I-30 through downtown Fort Worth where they are still adding tunnels under it so local traffic can flow to the Medical District. Blockage is bad!

Contributing to the width of the freeway are emergency service shoulders, where sick cars and trucks can pull over and not block traffic. 40 feet of width could have been saved by eliminating them, two 10 feet lanes for the main lanes and two 10 feet lanes for the ramps. I do not think those 40 feet are a waste of space considering the safety reasons for having them.

Sure, a simpler solution of blocking Elm and Commerce with just an intersection for Main could be tighter, but blocking two streets for just one would have created a choke point.

I like it as it is.

User avatar
MC_ScattCat
Posts: 138
Joined: 26 Jun 2019 16:12

Re: I-345

Postby MC_ScattCat » 21 Apr 2021 15:18

I personally like the toll tunnel idea like in Addison. If you want to speed through then you can pay if not go around. Might be more expensive, but tolls can offset some of the costs. I know DART will have a tunnel there too, but I have a hard time believing they can't find a way to have both in a tunnel near each other.

User avatar
quixomniac
Posts: 280
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 21:24

Re: I-345

Postby quixomniac » 21 Apr 2021 21:59

MC_ScattCat wrote:I personally like the toll tunnel idea like in Addison. If you want to speed through then you can pay if not go around. Might be more expensive, but tolls can offset some of the costs. I know DART will have a tunnel there too, but I have a hard time believing they can't find a way to have both in a tunnel near each other.


As I recall, when I originally mentioned a tolled tunnel, some of the forum members pointed out that the elevation gradient needed to build a tunnel would be too high given the road standards for it to be safe. I345 has to go over I30 south of Deep Ellum, and come back to trench level at Woodall/75. A proposed I345 tunnel would be too steep speeding cars to slow down.

For that reason a covered trench, a sort of tunnel, just below surface level like Woodall is, covered by a deck park would be the ideal compromise IMO, maintaining thru traffic while restitching the downtown/Deep ellum street grid.

User avatar
TNWE
Posts: 348
Joined: 03 May 2017 09:42

Re: I-345

Postby TNWE » 24 Apr 2021 14:12

quixomniac wrote:
tamtagon wrote:Requiring more affordable/subsidized housing in Collin county will aid the workers far more than retaining a highway so poor people from South Dallas can get to a job on Coco....


I'm not sure what was the point of deflecting to Collin County (Plano, richardson etc).
When I say the North, it is quite general, can involve medical technicians working in numerous hospitals, airport jobs at DFW or Love field or even seasonal jobs working at AAC. These are things that are not moving any time soon or can be replaced by anticipated growth in Downtown that may or may not come.

But sure lets demand subsidized housing for minorities in Collin County. I'm sure that will go over well. Besides what Dallas people want has no bearing on what Collin County does.
What Dallasites can do for their fellow Dallasites is surely limited to the confines of Dallas itself.


As always, "Collin County" is code for "terrible people who hate the planet and eat at Chili's and voted for Trump." Its a reflexive otherization by folks who are angry that some people don't want to live in a 700 sq ft apartment and listen to sirens all night or think that their local shops being boarded-up is ok because they have pretty murals painted on the plywood.

For better or worse, economic activity will always follow the freeways and interstates. If Dallas wants to tear out that driver of economic activity, that's their decision. Just don't be surprised when the center of activity continues its shift northward.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 2120
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: I-345

Postby tamtagon » 24 Apr 2021 15:11

^in regard to my point of view of Collin County, you're wrong, and jumping to the wrong conclusion.... I'll amend what I said so it's easier to think about when I have time.
:)

User avatar
kozzy
Posts: 12
Joined: 26 Feb 2019 08:04

Re: I-345

Postby kozzy » 02 May 2021 09:19

As of late, it doesn’t appear there has been much impeding adjacent development to the overpasses. I’m surprised by the new properties going up so quickly surrounding 345. I know there was some talks of reconfiguring the Bryan Street exit or eliminating it all together exchanging it for more sensible access to Ross Ave coming northbound. If they do decide to keep the overpasses and refurbish, do we know what basic changes they are planning on going with? I’ve had trouble locating design proposals, so there may not be any on the table at this point.

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 366
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: I-345

Postby electricron » 02 May 2021 23:34

kozzy wrote:As of late, it doesn’t appear there has been much impeding adjacent development to the overpasses. I’m surprised by the new properties going up so quickly surrounding 345. I know there was some talks of reconfiguring the Bryan Street exit or eliminating it all together exchanging it for more sensible access to Ross Ave coming northbound. If they do decide to keep the overpasses and refurbish, do we know what basic changes they are planning on going with? I’ve had trouble locating design proposals, so there may not be any on the table at this point.

TXDOT is still doing the first feasibility studies, there is nothing set on what they will do. But they have released this web page setting the date of reporting the initial results of the feasibility study.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-inv ... ch2021.pdf

After the feasibility studies are finished, then Tier 1 and Tier 2 EIS studies follows. We are years away from knowing exactly what they will do.
The results of the poll from December 2019 was as follows:
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-inv ... ug2020.pdf
Total Responses: 849
Depressed, similar to US 75 31%
No Build (Remain elevated) 27%
Remove 27%
At Grade 5%
Add Capacity/Widen Lanes 3%
Elevate with Ramping Improvements 1%
Express/Managed Lanes 1%
I believe the upcoming public meeting will report results from December 2020 polling.

Tough to believe that there were only 849 responses in December 2019. 849.

Please respond in future meetings and let your opinion be heard. The idea that 849 responders will sway what happens to a highway used by 180,000 vehicles a day turns my stomach.

Some math follows:
849 / 180,000 x 100 = 0.47%
Yes, less than half of a percentage point.