I-345

User avatar
eburress
Posts: 972
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:13

Re: I-345

Postby eburress » 04 May 2021 12:47

I can live with a depressed/sunken option, particularly if they clean up the ramps through there, and I'm also fine if they remove it.

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

Re: I-345

Postby electricron » 15 May 2021 21:28

A freeway that should have been built more than 50 years ago, but was not. Now it is the divided highway with the highest crash rate in the entire country. Read more about it at
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/lo ... 0/2815064/

At least Philadelphia is coming to its sense, and are now proposing a freeway along Roosevelt Blvd (US Highway 1).
Tear down I-345 in Dallas, expect similar number of crashes is all I will suggest. But the freeway Philadelphia wants is a capped freeway - similar to what some want in Dallas.
The big difference is in Dallas I-345 is around 2 miles long, US 1 in Philadelphia is over 10 miles in length, and even longer outside the city limits.;)

Whereas building freeways supposedly causes latent increase in traffic, not building a freeway not only does not eliminate traffic, it also does not reduce crashes. At some point, traffic becomes so high it is better to put that traffic onto a controlled access highway (freeway) than not.

User avatar
longhorn
Posts: 32
Joined: 13 Jul 2017 14:21

Re: I-345

Postby longhorn » 27 May 2021 08:52

Cannot believe this argument about what to do with 345 has gone on this long. A part of me want the Urbanist to get what they want and tear down 345 and replace it with a boulevard and watch the cluster of chaos it will cause.

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

Re: I-345

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 29 May 2021 11:29

I'll say it once and I'll say it again .. TxDOT Doesn't give a crap, about "traffic". They have never in their history relived traffic congestion. They just rehash expansion ideas. They're now more focused on creating jobs and Economic activity.

They're going to tear down i345 and point to created jobs, residential, parks etc. As a bullet point of accomplishments.

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

Re: I-345

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 22 Jun 2021 21:33

I-345 Feasibility Study Virtual Public Meeting
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/I345

The concepts:
No Build/Leave I-345 As-Is: No additional improvements would occur to I-345 other than those already programmed.
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites ... 20Plot.pdf

Depressed Alternative: Similar to US 75, where mainlanes are low (below DART D2) with discontinuous frontage roads along either side and cross streets over the top. Includes pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the frontage roads and local streets.
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites ... 20Plot.pdf

Removal Alternative: The existing mainlanes would be removed and the city grid is reconnected. Includes pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites ... 20Plot.pdf

Elevated Alternative: Similar to what exists now, with a smaller footprint of an elevated highway with aesthetic improvements, revised access and signage for drivers, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities under the highway.
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites ... 20Plot.pdf

Hybrid Alternative: Similar to US 75 and the proposed depressed alternative. There is limited access from the mainlanes to local streets that are reconnected over the top. No proposed frontage roads. Access to the area is from local streets, I-30 or Woodall Rodgers Freeway. Includes pedestrian and bicycle facilities along local streets.
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites ... 20Plot.pdf

---------

Personal Opinion: The depressed option is the clear winner if cost is no object. Good local access combined with a reduced footprint and the current best practice of trenching. The elevated option just doesn't do much for the cost, and hurts local access. The hybrid option combines the disadvantage of the depressed option (high cost) with the poor local access of the elevated option. The perpetual gridlock option (a/k/a removal) is just plain stupid.

Other items of note:
- The origin/destination traffic patterns demonstrate what everyone knew: The primary beneficiaries of the highway are the folks who live to the south and east. From this you know that (1) the removal crowd will be (quite rightfully) labeled as racists who don't give a damn about the minority community, and (2) any attempt to advocate for removal as "racial justice" will fall on deaf ears. The removal option is dead.

- The last slide on http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites ... alysis.pdf is perhaps the most important: The projected effects of the alternatives on total congestion. Interesting that the "no build" baseline is the best one here. It's a shame to spend so much money to cater to the politically correct crowd and not get any real benefit out of it.

- It sucks that every build option shows traffic volume at my street corner going up by 50%+ on at least one of the two streets.

- http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites ... 20Plot.pdf shows just what a lie the "re-stitching the street grid" argument has been. Hell, the removal option makes it worse. Canton is already a major route into and out of downtown, and will become important starting next year when construction starts on killing Commerce and Elm. The removal option bisects Canton, as well as Taylor. About the only street "re-connected" is Hawkins, and based on experience DART will fight to not have to put a crossing there for D2, leaving it bisected. (It's ironic how many more streets were cut-off by DART than I-345, yet the highway gets the grief.)

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

Re: I-345

Postby electricron » 23 Jun 2021 07:29

Hannibal Lecter wrote:Other items of note:
- The last slide is perhaps the most important: The projected effects of the alternatives on total congestion. Interesting that the "no build" baseline is the best one here. It's a shame to spend so much money to cater to the politically correct crowd and not get any real benefit out of it.

(It's ironic how many more streets were cut-off by DART than I-345, yet the highway gets the grief.)


Is it not amazing that TXDOT planners back in the 1960s, yes 60 years ago, knew how to build the best freeway layout as far as traffic congestion was concerned. :lol:

This latest presentation just reaffirms what I knew all along, there was/is/will be nothing wrong with I-345 as is. Just repair and refurbish it and spend the extra money somewhere else, like maybe a new deck park over I-30.

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

Re: I-345

Postby tamtagon » 23 Jun 2021 15:25

I still like the physical separation of an elevated highway....

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

Re: I-345

Postby quixomniac » 23 Jun 2021 18:43

Hannibal Lecter wrote:Other items of note:
- The last slide is perhaps the most important: The projected effects of the alternatives on total congestion. Interesting that the "no build" baseline is the best one here. It's a shame to spend so much money to cater to the politically correct crowd and not get any real benefit out of it.

I was gonna post a summary like this, but you beat me to it. Thanks!
But yes, the no build argument is proved bunk.
This slide literally paints a bleak picture with all the red on it.
It will make Deep Ellum a traffic nightmare, that’s a pain to drive and walk in.
A0A7FCDF-F186-43CD-8A2F-6622367390FC.jpeg

electricron wrote:Is it not amazing that TXDOT planners back in the 1960s, yes 60 years ago, knew how to build the best freeway layout as far as traffic congestion was concerned. :lol:

This latest presentation just reaffirms what I knew all along, there was/is/will be nothing wrong with I-345 as is. Just repair and refurbish it and spend the extra money somewhere else, like maybe a new deck park over I-30.

Yes, its very easy to build a highway that maximizes traffic counts while ignoring all the blight an overpass creates in its immediate area and the giant barrier it imposes on pedestrians between two areas (Deep Ellum/East Quarter) that ideally should have giant synergy between them.

It’s been 60 years since, we should be able to make a better highway qualified by metrics other than traffic count. And I say this even though Im not fully against an elevated option.
I just think we can do better than what is currently there.
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 » 23 Jun 2021 19:04

tamtagon wrote:I still like the physical separation of an elevated highway....

I don’t mind it either. Elevated creates lots of useful space underneath too.
The elevated alternative shown here does a great job restoring the grid by eliminating the weird ramps, its actually better at it than the trench options.
But I’m having a hard time evaluating the options without seeing how I45, I30 and the recently removed 175 will turn out. If there are viable options to each of these highways such as Canton straight thru exposition onto I30, or a better way to get off I45 to either good Latimer or Cesar Chavez, then I’d be fine with elevated no ramps.
985E2096-B32A-44AE-9F30-DF260B673CE8.jpeg
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 » 23 Jun 2021 21:21

First and foremost, everyone make sure to answer the survey.
It is better than screaming into the void ad nauseam.
https://suvey-modifications.dh8qz31pqmn ... ity_Study/

My opinion: we need more information, increase the scope a little bit, focusing on just what is immediately next to I345 is too myopic. As I mentioned before, it’s hard to evaluate the street focused options without looking at how to improve throughput from I30 and I45 onto relevant streets such as Canton, Good Latimer, etc. This is important to me since my perspective is coming in from the South and the East.

My personal preference is some kind of trench, and i was a bit surprised that there was an alternative trench option. Can anyone tell me how popular the deep ellum urban garden is with folks? Because the way it splits Good Latimer up makes for some very weird intersections, land plots, unnecessarily large street medians. Functionally it is dead much like bark park central if it is cut off from deep ellum like that.

If it is possible to move it elsewhere, or make a deal to include it in a future deck park, that would simplify lots of things and my biggest gripe with the original trench option in that Canton leads to a dead end and commerce doesn’t connect to Good Latimer on either side of the trench. Good Latimer shouldn’t end at main, it just doesn’t make sense. It should go to Commerce on both sides, continuity of something resembling service roads on either side of the trench is important for anyone navigating that area. There is nothing more frustrating than a dead end.
2A291E69-2061-4082-9A80-4440CB1CB486.jpeg

The original trench option has good circulation feed in to the EMC corridor. And leaves nice big deck parks, but i just dont see these as quiet klyde warrens with cars feeding in unless there are street lights here. Which doesn’t bode well for traffic. The other thing that is important, is maximizing the size of the deck park next to Carpenter park. I think this is the most important deck park of the lot, and maximizing its size should be the highest priority. So moving Cesar Chavez to one side of the trench would help and also eliminates this weird loop dead end.
F2E821E6-9DE3-450A-A545-F2FFFA7E61C6.jpeg


The alternative is very interesting! But only works for me if there as an exit from I45 near Cesar Chavez/good Latimer a few miles south. Similarly for Canton from I30 (which they are working on btw). If you move deep ellum gardens, it helps straighten out good Latimer and the resulting deck parks line up nicely with Julius schepps park. This is the best way to maximize the deck parks them selves, by combining them with the existing parks for a more contiguous park instead of small block size islands surrounded by highway ramp drop offs.
FC112A58-598A-4E31-BEF0-8AF4362D2C10.jpeg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: I-345

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 23 Jun 2021 21:48

Can anyone tell me how popular the deep ellum urban garden is with folks? Because the way it splits Good Latimer up makes for some very weird intersections, land plots, unnecessarily large street medians. Functionally it is dead much like bark park central if it is cut off from deep ellum like that.


It has a small but dedicate membership. The location probably doesn't matter. It's where it is simply because it was free land from the city, like the dog park. No reason it couldn't be moved as long as it's in the 'hood.

Good Latimer shouldn’t end at main, it just doesn’t make sense. It should go to Commerce on both sides, continuity of something resembling service roads on either side of the trench is important for anyone navigating that area. There is nothing more frustrating than a dead end.


Damn, I totally missed that. It looks like there's no way to continue it through there at ground level because of the ramps from I-30. That's a fail.

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

Re: I-345

Postby quixomniac » 24 Jun 2021 00:41

Hannibal Lecter wrote:It has a small but dedicate membership. The location probably doesn't matter. It's where it is simply because it was free land from the city, like the dog park. No reason it couldn't be moved as long as it's in the 'hood.

They should reach out to TxDOT, i think they could keep around the same amount of space, just moving the farm from one side of the street to the other. It makes a huge difference to the street grid

I made a composite of my suggestions by splitting the trench option and the alternative trench at pacific ave…prioritizing Canton/ Good Latimer continuity and decking next to Schepps and Carpenter parks…and realized that it is essentially what the original CityMAP study proposed :lol: I wonder why they changed it?
34FF1CC3-D66F-4EBB-B4E4-39339520872B.jpeg

F308CDBC-F31D-4324-930A-F45A4F5D012A.jpeg

Which goes to show how we should be looking at it regionally.
They even suggested on/off ramps for good Latimer/Chavez further south on I45, although i think the off ramp should feed directly onto good Latimer
B0FA8718-4359-4144-A023-915F0DF12E09.jpeg

Lastly the Toole Study, from a year ago, suggested something similar at Canton/Exposition and I30. With these two modifications, id be very happy with the original City MAP version
90CF491B-3CC2-46D9-A383-225F5672FFC8.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: I-345

Postby LPG » 24 Jun 2021 21:50

electricron wrote:
Hannibal Lecter wrote:Other items of note:
- The last slide is perhaps the most important: The projected effects of the alternatives on total congestion. Interesting that the "no build" baseline is the best one here. It's a shame to spend so much money to cater to the politically correct crowd and not get any real benefit out of it.

(It's ironic how many more streets were cut-off by DART than I-345, yet the highway gets the grief.)


Is it not amazing that TXDOT planners back in the 1960s, yes 60 years ago, knew how to build the best freeway layout as far as traffic congestion was concerned. :lol:

This latest presentation just reaffirms what I knew all along, there was/is/will be nothing wrong with I-345 as is. Just repair and refurbish it and spend the extra money somewhere else, like maybe a new deck park over I-30.


I appreciate the fact that a ‘highway’ that consistently is moving at less than 40 MPH falls in the ‘nothing wrong’ category. Even if we’re evaluating inner city thoroughfares solely on traffic counts, it’s fucking dreadful at it’s supposed job.

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

Re: I-345

Postby electricron » 25 Jun 2021 07:05

LPG wrote:I appreciate the fact that a ‘highway’ that consistently is moving at less than 40 MPH falls in the ‘nothing wrong’ category. Even if we’re evaluating inner city thoroughfares solely on traffic counts, it’s fucking dreadful at it’s supposed job.

Ever thought on why the traffic is moving so slowly?

Never-the-less, the recently completed study shows "none" of the other "new" replacement proposals move traffic any faster, in theory "all" of the "new" proposals will move traffic slower.

If your ultimate goal is having traffic moving faster, maybe looking at other ideas just might work better - like actually adding more lanes.

I suggest before adding more lanes everywhere, it might be a great idea to first identify where the choke point is, and just add lanes at the choke point. Who knows, the choke point may not be I-345 at all, but I-30, Woodall Rogers, or downtown Dallas city streets.

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

Re: I-345

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 25 Jun 2021 11:20

I appreciate the fact that a ‘highway’ that consistently is moving at less than 40 MPH falls in the ‘nothing wrong’ category.


During rush hour <> "consistently".

I suggest before adding more lanes everywhere, it might be a great idea to first identify where the choke point is, and just add lanes at the choke point. Who knows, the choke point may not be I-345 at all, but I-30, Woodall Rogers, or downtown Dallas city streets.


Southbound, the primary issues are traffic backing up on the ramp to I-30 and the weaving in the stretch between the Spur 366 merge and the I-30 exit.

Northbound, you've got a short stretch where you lose multiple exit-only lanes with more vehicles merging in, mainly from the left. From I-30 to Lemmon you've got nine lanes merging down to four.

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

Re: I-345

Postby electricron » 26 Jun 2021 09:29

Hannibal Lecter wrote:Southbound, the primary issues are traffic backing up on the ramp to I-30 and the weaving in the stretch between the Spur 366 merge and the I-30 exit.

Northbound, you've got a short stretch where you lose multiple exit-only lanes with more vehicles merging in, mainly from the left. From I-30 to Lemmon you've got nine lanes merging down to four.


So, adding lanes to I-30 could reduce the backup onto I-345 southbound.
Northbound you are counting all the on-ramps, but fail to account for the off-ramps.
Obviously it is easier for traffic to get on I-345 than off, so the backup could be reduced if more vehicles were getting off onto downtown city streets, or if US-75 added more lanes heading north. But Dallas restricted TXDOT to limiting US-75 to 8 lanes, 4 lanes in each direction, when it was expanded. A perfect example of what happens when politics messes up professional planning. It does not take a genius to realize choking 9 lanes of traffic down into 4 is going to cause congestion.

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

Re: I-345

Postby LPG » 26 Jun 2021 11:50

Hannibal Lecter wrote:
I appreciate the fact that a ‘highway’ that consistently is moving at less than 40 MPH falls in the ‘nothing wrong’ category.


During rush hour <> "consistently".

I suggest before adding more lanes everywhere, it might be a great idea to first identify where the choke point is, and just add lanes at the choke point. Who knows, the choke point may not be I-345 at all, but I-30, Woodall Rogers, or downtown Dallas city streets.


Southbound, the primary issues are traffic backing up on the ramp to I-30 and the weaving in the stretch between the Spur 366 merge and the I-30 exit.

Northbound, you've got a short stretch where you lose multiple exit-only lanes with more vehicles merging in, mainly from the left. From I-30 to Lemmon you've got nine lanes merging down to four.


LOL. At 11:46 AM on a Saturday morning, staring out my window, I345 is at a standstill. We must have very different definitions of ‘rush hour’!

Even with the reduction in traffic from Covid, ‘rush hour’ begins at 6 AM and doesn’t end until 10 PM on I345, apparently!

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

Re: I-345

Postby kozzy » 21 Jul 2021 10:27

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/proj ... 11519.html

Saw this call to speak on a variable message sign going WB on 30 near Carroll. Of course TxDOT didn’t provide a link on the board, so I had to Google around until I found it. Deadline for input is August 22nd.

User avatar
longhorn
Posts: 32
Joined: 13 Jul 2017 14:21

Re: I-345

Postby longhorn » 06 May 2022 14:12

345 apparently is going to be depressed per another website.

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

Re: I-345

Postby Tucy » 06 May 2022 14:22

longhorn wrote:345 apparently is going to be depressed per another website.


Link? Name of the other website?

User avatar
longhorn
Posts: 32
Joined: 13 Jul 2017 14:21

Re: I-345

Postby longhorn » 06 May 2022 22:58


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

Re: I-345

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 08 May 2022 14:04

longhorn wrote:https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25140.75

Where does it even imply that?

User avatar
undefinedprocess
Site Admin
Posts: 466
Joined: 05 Jul 2020 05:45
Contact:

Re: I-345

Postby undefinedprocess » 09 May 2022 00:20

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:
longhorn wrote:https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25140.75

Where does it even imply that?

On a previous page of the thread on that forum, a user posted the following:
Good news was reported at NCTCOG yesterday. See item 4, starting at 20:00.
https://nctcog.swagit.com/play/04152022-510

Director Morris said, "Some exciting work you'll hear from TxDOT in the next few months with regard to depressing 345, and the potential partner of having joint construction, potentially of D2 and the freeway in a very nice collaborative process to make sure both are successful."

D2 is the planned new subway line through downtown, which was realigned to avoid a conflict with depressing IH 345. The D2 alignment now runs along the freeway for a short distance, rather crossing it.

Hopefully this will all come together and talk of removing IH 345 entirely will end.

That person clearly hates the idea of removing 345, but oh well. Anyways, appears an NCTCOG director said this at a meeting on April 15(?).

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

Re: I-345

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 09 May 2022 09:47

undefinedprocess wrote:
Tivo_Kenevil wrote:
longhorn wrote:https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25140.75

Where does it even imply that?

On a previous page of the thread on that forum, a user posted the following:
Good news was reported at NCTCOG yesterday. See item 4, starting at 20:00.
https://nctcog.swagit.com/play/04152022-510

Director Morris said, "Some exciting work you'll hear from TxDOT in the next few months with regard to depressing 345, and the potential partner of having joint construction, potentially of D2 and the freeway in a very nice collaborative process to make sure both are successful."

D2 is the planned new subway line through downtown, which was realigned to avoid a conflict with depressing IH 345. The D2 alignment now runs along the freeway for a short distance, rather crossing it.

Hopefully this will all come together and talk of removing IH 345 entirely will end.

That person clearly hates the idea of removing 345, but oh well. Anyways, appears an NCTCOG director said this at a meeting on April 15(?).


Assuming it's depressed... Does that even Allow for new development? Near or on the depressed 345

User avatar
mhainli
Posts: 82
Joined: 02 Mar 2017 17:56

Re: I-345

Postby mhainli » 09 May 2022 15:55

I hope it is depressed too. To be clear I am as pro-development and pro-downtown as anybody in this forum, but this I-345 Removal option has never made logical sense to me. I cannot imagine driving through there and having to get off the highway and drive on a traffic choked boulevard through several lights, etc. OR drive all the way around downtown on I-30, I-35E, and Woodall. Those in favor of removal must either: 1) never/rarely drive on the I-345 corridor and/or 2) think that a traffic choked surface street system (think Northwest Highway times three) is better in some way?

Excuse me but the removal option sounds less walkable, less “developable”, cause more air pollution and potential for traffic accidents, not to mention the head scratching it would cause out-of-towners just wanting to pass through and now have to get off the highway?? They’d think we’re crazy for doing this! The depressed option for I-345 is the only viable one and should be designed to have minimal on/off ramps and create potential for one or more Klyde Warren type parks. If there is a second best option it would be rebuilding the overhead bridges - anything to keep the huge vehicle load separated from the local street system and pedestrians.

I haven’t weighed in on this in years and now fully expect the anti-freeway ideologues to come out in full force. It would be interesting to know why they aren’t proposing the removal of freeways on their own way to work.

User avatar
PonyUp13
Posts: 56
Joined: 03 Nov 2016 21:10

Re: I-345

Postby PonyUp13 » 12 May 2022 07:39

If they depress it hopefully it can be pre-built for easy capping a la Klyde Warren if the neighborhood TIFs it or raises the money in some other way. A couple cap parks and re-stitching the surface street grid and I think we accomplish much of what removal advocates (like myself) would hope for.

User avatar
mhainli
Posts: 82
Joined: 02 Mar 2017 17:56

Re: I-345

Postby mhainli » 12 May 2022 14:54

PonyUp13 wrote:If they depress it hopefully it can be pre-built for easy capping a la Klyde Warren if the neighborhood TIFs it or raises the money in some other way. A couple cap parks and re-stitching the surface street grid and I think we accomplish much of what removal advocates (like myself) would hope for.

I think your description of the depressed option is exactly what should be done. In addition to what I mention above, a big challenge to removing I-345 is the huge issue of planning, financing and building the necessary street network (and improvements to the other circuitous freeways) to handle the increased traffic load. Even if I were for this option I don’t trust the city, county and state to work together, stage and construct things in a timely manner. Once removal of I-345 starts there had better be decent alternatives in place for the “through traffic”, which is difficult since I-345 itself takes up room…

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

Re: I-345

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 17 May 2022 19:05

Traffic will never go away in a city center and spending millions of taxpayers' money pretending it can be dealt with effectively by building more roads is a delusional daydream no different than what people think of those of us who challenge the keep 345 mantras. Its been proven time and time again that building more roadways above or below here will create more traffic like bees to pollen. The traffic will only get worse adding anything except removing some of what is here. We want more people, not more cars. We are chasing the symptoms rather than the cause of the sickness. It's like giving a cold patient a kleenex you are doing nothing to treat the problem at its roots. I don't trust the various governmental bodies to handle this either but that's because they keep listening to the public who think traffic is better with more lanes and more parking lots. Let's not forget the reason a buried option will happen here is the pricey contracts at stake to rebuild this section of the freeway. Jobs jobs they say will flourish when the highway is buried. Tear down and Dallas will collapse into a sinkhole and all we are lost because traffic will basically be the same as it was before the rebuild with almost no real improvement except to choke Downtown as it does already.

Keep it as is or tear it down completely, don't waste my tax money on building the same noose with a newer rope.
“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 » 18 May 2022 12:56

You act like traffic is a bad thing. Traffic is a good thing. Hell, traffic is a GREAT thing!

Traffic is people going where they want and goods getting where they are wanted. Traffic means economic activity. Traffic is the lifeblood of a city. One of the primary reasons for Dallas's economic growth over the past century is it's position as a major warehouse and distribution center. That means traffic. What would Dallas be without the thousands upon thousands of warehouses and truck terminals throughout North Texas? DFW Airport is often thought of as the economic cornerstone of DFW, but what would it be without the tens of thousands of cars and trucks traveling to and from it each day?

The "new urbanism" idiots complain that when you expand a highway it's soon just as congested as it was before. So what? Unless you are really naive you don't expand it to get rid of congestion, you expand it to carry more people and goods. It might be just as congested, but it's carrying twice as many people and twice as many goods. In my book that's a win.

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

Re: I-345

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 18 May 2022 14:02

Traffic is a good thing but when it's mostly people sitting in it not going anywhere causing pollution and passing by the city center and not working there, living there or shopping there it is eroding the tax base. Traffic that moves to the burbs without being slowed down because it's on a high-speed highway is eroding and moving jobs, people, and taxes going down the road to some other cities' budgets like Frisco it is detrimental to the economy. Millions of cars clogging the shipping access you speak of are not good traffic. People who need to spend gas money, insurance, and wear and tear on their cars just to pick up medicine or buy a gallon of milk is not good traffic. When the entire system is depending on you to drive for miles on end to reach basic goods services is bad traffic. I take no issue that we need ways to ship goods to and from warehouses and then to homes but when that system is clogged with people doing minor things so all of the economic activity comes to a halt because everyone has to use a car that's the problem. When to feed people in South Dallas they have to drive to North Dallas just to buy groceries cause the car-based system makes the business of grocery stores incongruent to feeding actual people. When highways make it makes sense to put the good jobs in Frisco so poor people in lower-level jobs who can't afford rent in Frisco have to drive 50 miles a day to work that's a problem but the rich affluent execs can live in a good school district, easy access to groceries, goods and services and can use less gas but rarely choose to do so because the system is designed to encourage the heavy burning of fossil fuels just to stay alive.
“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell”

User avatar
IcedCowboyCoffee
Posts: 88
Joined: 23 Mar 2022 13:22

Re: I-345

Postby IcedCowboyCoffee » 18 May 2022 15:46

Traffic is great, we're just choosing time and time again to prioritize the worst possible form of it that has ever been conceived.
The only way Dallas traffic could be worse (albeit more fun) is if we replaced every road with water canals and drove individual speed boats everywhere.

We have this entire planet to draw examples from, there are an abundance of cities perfectly capable of efficiently moving commerce about without saddling every single resident in those cities with car dependency, and they are irrefutably better off for it by every conceivable metric. In spite of clear examples, we still prioritize endless road expansion above all else, which suggests we think all those other cities are foolish for planning otherwise, foolish for thinking they had found a better balance between roadways and other transit options.

When we build the way we do and regularly defend it, it suggests a conceited belief that we cracked the perfect city design formula. Or it suggests a nihilistic belief that there is something unique to us as a city that forces our hand to accept these cuts to our quality of life as the cost of moving capital, that we as Dallasites/Americans have no other way and that there is no greater path forward.

We are the ones acting foolish, repeatedly hitting our head against the wall and wondering why our air sucks, why we are so much more likely to die simply by commuting, why we spend so much of our income just to commute, why infrastructure repair costs are astronomical, etc.

Tokyo still has highways, and those highways sprawl all over the urban centers. But the difference is they're tiny, typically two lanes on each side, they're compactly designed so they don't create deadzones beneath them--and they enable commercial trucks to easily pass through. They can do that because they chose to balance their transit funding with other viable options for residents.

We're addicted to these behemoth freeways because we can't imagine a reality where we aren't regularly fighting during our commutes for the same space as our commercial trucks. We aren't adding lanes just for trucks, we're adding it for everyone because we've created a system where everyone is forced to use them. We keep touching the stove and wondering why we get burned every time.

User avatar
The_Overdog
Posts: 593
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 14:55

Re: I-345

Postby The_Overdog » 19 May 2022 09:15

DFW Airport is often thought of as the economic cornerstone of DFW, but what would it be without the tens of thousands of cars and trucks traveling to and from it each day?


Anybody that says DFW Airport was a catalyst for growth of the DFW metroplex is wrong. The growth rate has slowed since it was built. Maybe it has kept DFW from being a middling metro like Orlando or San Antonio, but that's a very different thing. So to declare it a cornerstone is also just an opinion not an economic fact.

User avatar
mhainli
Posts: 82
Joined: 02 Mar 2017 17:56

Re: I-345

Postby mhainli » 19 May 2022 14:33

cowboyeagle05 wrote:Traffic is a good thing but when it's mostly people sitting in it not going anywhere causing pollution and passing by the city center and not working there, living there or shopping there it is eroding the tax base. Traffic that moves to the burbs without being slowed down because it's on a high-speed highway is eroding and moving jobs, people, and taxes going down the road to some other cities' budgets like Frisco it is detrimental to the economy. Millions of cars clogging the shipping access you speak of are not good traffic. People who need to spend gas money, insurance, and wear and tear on their cars just to pick up medicine or buy a gallon of milk is not good traffic. When the entire system is depending on you to drive for miles on end to reach basic goods services is bad traffic. I take no issue that we need ways to ship goods to and from warehouses and then to homes but when that system is clogged with people doing minor things so all of the economic activity comes to a halt because everyone has to use a car that's the problem. When to feed people in South Dallas they have to drive to North Dallas just to buy groceries cause the car-based system makes the business of grocery stores incongruent to feeding actual people. When highways make it makes sense to put the good jobs in Frisco so poor people in lower-level jobs who can't afford rent in Frisco have to drive 50 miles a day to work that's a problem but the rich affluent execs can live in a good school district, easy access to groceries, goods and services and can use less gas but rarely choose to do so because the system is designed to encourage the heavy burning of fossil fuels just to stay alive.

The ideological solution of removing I345 will not make the population growth or traffic go away. It will practically make traffic much worse on every major street or highway in that vicinity, hence making it less desirable to live and work in Deep Ellum, downtown, etc. Maybe if it gets bad enough long enough people and businesses won’t put up with it and indeed move. If this is a positive solution then let’s just remove all the ugly highways and put folks at traffic light after traffic light….

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

Re: I-345

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 20 May 2022 19:50

The businesses already moved. Have you seen Downtown the office space is mostly empty and continuing to empty while we dump money turning dead parking lots into parks to try to recover some benefit. Even though the Dallas skyline is legendary offices keep moving away. Office occupancy is very low and ticking downward not up. The data is here on other threads.

We convert offices to apartments sure but the number of rooftops is not enough to put the CBD in the positive. What AT&T invested was great but a drop in the bucket. If there was a heat map for economic activity and development in DFW the CBD would be dark cold blue and Uptown would be Green/Yellow while Frisco/Plano would be dark red with action and activity. Downtown is the bottom edge of development and the highways have not saved it but instead enabled moving jobs/shopping and homes down the road first to places like Garland or 635/North Dallas in the 70/80's then further and further with places like Rockwall and Frisco/Plano now filling up to their city limits. Even now the next phase has begun with more jobs starting to go to McKinney/Allen/Celina/Forney etc. All following the highway development model. The City of Garland used to be the it spot for many families now they too are begging to attract even a sliver of what Plano has these days while also choking on fumes of traffic passing by their city to green pastures up north and further out.

The pattern repeats with each new section of the freeway and each highway widening project. Extend DNT and those cities up there succeed while more and more jobs/shopping and homes leave the historic city center. All while the state struggles to fund traffic solutions to enable that movement of people just passing through and passing by well-established and deteriorating strip centers that slowly get reinvestment while the city's coffers keep scraping into the red. Don't forget gas taxes don't pay for the highways maintenance or expansion they keep building new lanes without money for rebuilding aging highways in urban areas and first-ring suburbs that beg for more concrete as their salvation. The traffic in Downtown right now is just sludge with some shipping traffic slowed to a crawl.

So yeah I have no blessing to spend more money on burying a highway that is already the cigarette giving us cancer. I will voluntary not respond on this thread to allow others the floor and refrain from further soapboxing.
“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell”

User avatar
mhainli
Posts: 82
Joined: 02 Mar 2017 17:56

Re: I-345

Postby mhainli » 20 May 2022 22:46

Agree that downtown has struggled compared to our northern suburbs in retaining and attracting businesses. Are years of highway expansions a contributing factor? Yes, but it’s just one of many. Even so, the area highways are now in place - AND in the suburbs too. If highways are a weakness it should be affecting them too. To me it just doesn’t make sense to cherry pick one important short connecting highway and do away with it. If the anti-highway’ers (even if they are correct) truly believe in their cause, they should be fighting all highways. In reality both Deep Ellum and East downtown (finally) are doing quite well with I-345…. I too will stop soapboxing and let others weigh in… :D

User avatar
potatocoins
Posts: 194
Joined: 18 May 2021 14:01

Re: I-345

Postby potatocoins » 24 May 2022 20:35


User avatar
IcedCowboyCoffee
Posts: 88
Joined: 23 Mar 2022 13:22

Re: I-345

Postby IcedCowboyCoffee » 25 May 2022 11:46

potatocoins wrote:https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/I345

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=27&v=y0aHq4OB-zU&feature=emb_title

I'm... kind of speechless. Wow. We're a parody of ourselves if this is what we go forward with.

User avatar
undefinedprocess
Site Admin
Posts: 466
Joined: 05 Jul 2020 05:45
Contact:

Re: I-345

Postby undefinedprocess » 25 May 2022 12:02

IcedCowboyCoffee wrote:
potatocoins wrote:https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/I345

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=27&v=y0aHq4OB-zU&feature=emb_title

I'm... kind of speechless. Wow. We're a parody of ourselves if this is what we go forward with.

This is disgusting.

User avatar
BigD5349
Posts: 40
Joined: 30 Jan 2018 16:12

Re: I-345

Postby BigD5349 » 25 May 2022 13:24

I thought the point was to balance "reconnecting Deep Ellum & downtown" with mobility. I cannot spot one single urban amenity that achieves the goal

User avatar
potatocoins
Posts: 194
Joined: 18 May 2021 14:01

Re: I-345

Postby potatocoins » 25 May 2022 14:02

With some deck parks, I could see this being a decent connection on certain streets. Elm/Main/Commerce look like they will be much better of a walk, but Ross looks like a mess.

I know this is pretty ghastly looking, but I'm not sure what a better solution would have been here. Would it have been possibly to keep the bridge and just make it skinnier or something?

By the way, if there are no plans to ever deck this thing, then I agree that this is atrocious.

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

Re: I-345

Postby tamtagon » 25 May 2022 16:25

The engineering is remarkable.

HAHAHAHAHA

Rebuild the elevated highway, with equally remarkable engineering to unify the ground level experience.

At least the elevated hwy comes with some shade in the summer.

User avatar
IcedCowboyCoffee
Posts: 88
Joined: 23 Mar 2022 13:22

Re: I-345

Postby IcedCowboyCoffee » 25 May 2022 17:05

345.JPG

Even if we capped a significant part of I-345 (which the city would be on the hook for, so I'm skeptical of how much we could afford to actually cap), this is just a mess. All to accommodate traffic that is 84% just passing through. But we insist on burning money trying to figure out how to squeeze those passerbys through some of the densest parts of town rather than significantly invest in taking cars off the road.
Nothing wrong with passerbys, but like I've said, we have chosen the most inefficient form for them to travel by, which eventually becomes a problem. You reach a physical limit and, unless you change course, you're stuck having to come up with increasingly goofy, over-the-top solutions to accommodate an ever-increasing number of them.

And this has an even worse impact on the appeal of carpenter park than the elevated hwy does. Like whew, who would want to actually spend time there, it looks miserable.
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 » 26 May 2022 16:12

Not sure why people are acting surprised.
The flyover video is just a visual representation of the hybrid alternative they were discussing a year ago.
Hannibal here posted all the links, those who participated in the study voted.
A majority of the people voted for some kind of trench so that we can deck it over with a park later.
The split was between the depressed alternative and the hybrid alternative.
But most people wanted something buried.

Hannibal Lecter wrote:I-345 Feasibility Study Virtual Public Meeting
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/I345

The concepts:
No Build/Leave I-345 As-Is: No additional improvements would occur to I-345 other than those already programmed.
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites ... 20Plot.pdf

Depressed Alternative: Similar to US 75, where mainlanes are low (below DART D2) with discontinuous frontage roads along either side and cross streets over the top. Includes pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the frontage roads and local streets.
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites ... 20Plot.pdf

Removal Alternative: The existing mainlanes would be removed and the city grid is reconnected. Includes pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites ... 20Plot.pdf

Elevated Alternative: Similar to what exists now, with a smaller footprint of an elevated highway with aesthetic improvements, revised access and signage for drivers, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities under the highway.
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites ... 20Plot.pdf

Hybrid Alternative: Similar to US 75 and the proposed depressed alternative. There is limited access from the mainlanes to local streets that are reconnected over the top. No proposed frontage roads. Access to the area is from local streets, I-30 or Woodall Rodgers Freeway. Includes pedestrian and bicycle facilities along local streets.
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites ... 20Plot.pdf

---------

Personal Opinion: The depressed option is the clear winner if cost is no object. Good local access combined with a reduced footprint and the current best practice of trenching. The elevated option just doesn't do much for the cost, and hurts local access. The hybrid option combines the disadvantage of the depressed option (high cost) with the poor local access of the elevated option. The perpetual gridlock option (a/k/a removal) is just plain stupid.

Other items of note:
- The origin/destination traffic patterns demonstrate what everyone knew: The primary beneficiaries of the highway are the folks who live to the south and east. From this you know that (1) the removal crowd will be (quite rightfully) labeled as racists who don't give a damn about the minority community, and (2) any attempt to advocate for removal as "racial justice" will fall on deaf ears. The removal option is dead.

- The last slide on http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites ... alysis.pdf is perhaps the most important: The projected effects of the alternatives on total congestion. Interesting that the "no build" baseline is the best one here. It's a shame to spend so much money to cater to the politically correct crowd and not get any real benefit out of it.

- It sucks that every build option shows traffic volume at my street corner going up by 50%+ on at least one of the two streets.

- http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites ... 20Plot.pdf shows just what a lie the "re-stitching the street grid" argument has been. Hell, the removal option makes it worse. Canton is already a major route into and out of downtown, and will become important starting next year when construction starts on killing Commerce and Elm. The removal option bisects Canton, as well as Taylor. About the only street "re-connected" is Hawkins, and based on experience DART will fight to not have to put a crossing there for D2, leaving it bisected. (It's ironic how many more streets were cut-off by DART than I-345, yet the highway gets the grief.)
Last edited by quixomniac on 26 May 2022 16:28, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: I-345

Postby quixomniac » 26 May 2022 16:21

IcedCowboyCoffee wrote:345.JPG
All to accommodate traffic that is 84% just passing through
….
And this has an even worse impact on the appeal of carpenter park than the elevated hwy does. Like whew, who would want to actually spend time there, it looks miserable.


Whered you get that figure from? But yes alot of traffic is passing thru, which is kind of the problem.
You can’t just remove the highway, because then youd dump alot of thru traffic onto deep ellum.

But I agree yes. the parts near carpenter are clunky. And they agreed on that. They are going to keep working on that portion
The design isnt final. Here is a link of the meeting itself. https://youtu.be/puIePSzxkxE
Also if youre upset, you can give input! Civic engagement is better than screaming into a void.
Here is a link to the study. https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/I345

For those who dont have the time to shift thru the links.
Here is a picture of the hybrid alternative shown in the video.
And also a repost of my recommendation, combining the hybrid with the depressed alternative.
D95CB01A-AD25-4536-B79B-8D9DBCC5924A.jpeg

FBD6D17A-8D1B-46D7-8A1C-AEE38062EFD7.jpeg

It’s cleaner IMO but doesnt completely eliminate the mess near carpenter.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
IcedCowboyCoffee
Posts: 88
Joined: 23 Mar 2022 13:22

Re: I-345

Postby IcedCowboyCoffee » 26 May 2022 16:34

quixomniac wrote:
IcedCowboyCoffee wrote:345.JPG
All to accommodate traffic that is 84% just passing through
….
And this has an even worse impact on the appeal of carpenter park than the elevated hwy does. Like whew, who would want to actually spend time there, it looks miserable.


Whered you get that figure from?

From this graphic: https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites/default/files/docs/Station%201_Exhibit%202_I-345_Study%20Location%20Map_040322_FINAL.pdf

User avatar
BigD5349
Posts: 40
Joined: 30 Jan 2018 16:12

Re: I-345

Postby BigD5349 » 30 May 2022 10:57

There's no need for so many cross town connectors... for example, why not eliminate Main over 345 and let Elm and Commerce feed to and from Deep Ellum? When Harwood was severed over Woodall Rodgers by KWP, the DMA freaked out, but now, no one even notices it.

This is presuming that we want to largely preserve Deep Ellum's core current density, I certainly don't want to see generic apartment and office buildings replacing the historic core.
Last edited by BigD5349 on 31 May 2022 14:06, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
potatocoins
Posts: 194
Joined: 18 May 2021 14:01

Re: I-345

Postby potatocoins » 30 May 2022 16:30

BigD5349 wrote:There's no need for so many cross town connectors... for example, why not eliminate Main over 345 and let Elm and Commerce feed to and from Deep Ellum? When Harwood was severed over Woodall Rodgers by KWP, the DMA freaked out, but now, no one even notices it.


I like this idea. In general, it doesn’t seem like this plan will help too much with connectivity, but the EMC looks like it could be a good connection from DE to Downtown if done right.

User avatar
mhainli
Posts: 82
Joined: 02 Mar 2017 17:56

Re: I-345

Postby mhainli » 30 May 2022 19:35

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.

User avatar
BigD5349
Posts: 40
Joined: 30 Jan 2018 16:12

Re: I-345

Postby BigD5349 » 31 May 2022 14:16

I also thought about converging Elm, Main and Commerce to an efficient triple overpass over 345 (get it? Contrasting the triple underpass on the other side of DT)... It would create more deck park space over 345, but such a plan could result in the destruction of historic buildings between Good Latimar and 345, and between 345 and Cesar Chavez. I don't want to see any more historic buildings destroyed for the sake of traffic flow.

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

Re: I-345

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 31 May 2022 15:14

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.....

:-)