Page 9 of 9
Re: I-345
Posted: 02 Jun 2022 16:01
by mhainli
Hannibal Lecter wrote:mhainli wrote:The big question I have is why does Hawkins need to cross over I345 to Canton? The severe skew causes clunky bridges that could interfere with 2 possible deck park locations. Hopefully the city will rethink this.
I suspect that this may be to throw a bone to the clueless "re-stitch the street grid" cultists. Since a few blocks of Hawkins and the westmost hundred feet of Swiss Avenue are pretty much the only streets that were actually removed for 345, there aren't many options. Of course even this "re-stitching" is a lie -- Hawkins never extended to Canton/Williams (Williams was the now Canton east of the railroad yards where 345 is now. Ironically, Canton and Williams didn't connect until 345 was built.)
Considering that the DART green line did ten times the damage to the street grid that 345 did, maybe we could get the re-stitchers to start a campaign to get rid of it.....
Thanks for the history on this. I hope the future deck park’ers and common sensers beat the re-stitchers on some of these wild crossings of 345. Hawkins should end at Elm and traffic can cross over there…
Re: I-345
Posted: 25 Aug 2022 20:48
by Redblock
A coalition of groups wants to stop the plan and study some more.
https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... for-i-345/
Re: I-345
Posted: 26 Aug 2022 19:17
by quixomniac
Really? When it became evident in the survey, that most people wanted it trenched and decked, instead of realizing they were in the minority, they will keep trying to delay it to get their way.
And of course it’s DMagazine pushing this. Their bias has always been for removal.
Re: I-345
Posted: 30 Aug 2022 20:00
by Tivo_Kenevil
quixomniac wrote:Really? When it became evident in the survey, that most people wanted it trenched and decked, instead of realizing they were in the minority, they will keep trying to delay it to get their way.
And of course it’s DMagazine pushing this. Their bias has always been for removal.
Re: I-345
Posted: 30 Aug 2022 20:02
by Tivo_Kenevil
quixomniac wrote:Really? When it became evident in the survey, that most people wanted it trenched and decked, instead of realizing they were in the minority, they will keep trying to delay it to get their way.
And of course it’s DMagazine pushing this. Their bias has always been for removal.
The trench idea is worse because it expands the freeway. It's literally eating more space than what's currently there.
Personally, I would like them to remove off and ramps and allow it to continue simply as an interchange.
Re: I-345
Posted: 01 Sep 2022 18:07
by quixomniac
Tivo_Kenevil wrote:quixomniac wrote:Really? When it became evident in the survey, that most people wanted it trenched and decked, instead of realizing they were in the minority, they will keep trying to delay it to get their way.
And of course it’s DMagazine pushing this. Their bias has always been for removal.
The trench idea is worse because it expands the freeway. It's literally eating more space than what's currently there.
Personally, I would like them to remove off and ramps and allow it to continue simply as an interchange.
Where did you get that information?
According to this diagram for trenching, that’s not accurate.
You can clearly see all the ramps/overpasses sticking out of the footprint of the trench.
Sure trench is not the same as removal when it comes to footprint. But its a definite improvement to what is there.
Not to mention how much easier it is to activate land immediately next to the highway when it is a trench vs. an elevated highway.
4770437A-6C69-41EB-BB3F-3AFB81B55447.jpeg
Re: I-345
Posted: 07 Sep 2022 15:58
by Tnexster
Re: I-345
Posted: 20 Oct 2022 09:49
by longhorn
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects ... 15-19.htmlNote to self avoid this stretch for the next five years.
Re: I-345
Posted: 21 Oct 2022 22:52
by dzh
I'm part of "Team Tear It Down." I truly believe that traffic will get rerouted and it's closure will only significantly help Downtown and Deep Ellum.
Re: I-345
Posted: 24 Oct 2022 12:28
by cowboyeagle05
Same.
Re: I-345
Posted: 24 Oct 2022 22:09
by Hannibal Lecter
dzh wrote:I'm part of "Team Tear It Down." I truly believe that traffic will get rerouted and it's closure will only significantly help Downtown and Deep Ellum.
Yeah, adding tens of thousands of cars a day on the street grid will work wonders for the neighborhood.
Of course with the impending plan to castrate Commerce and Elm down to one lane each direction it's going to be gridlock all day anyway, so I guess it really won't matter.
Re: I-345
Posted: 03 Nov 2022 17:42
by mhainli
Hannibal Lecter wrote:dzh wrote:I'm part of "Team Tear It Down." I truly believe that traffic will get rerouted and it's closure will only significantly help Downtown and Deep Ellum.
Yeah, adding tens of thousands of cars a day on the street grid will work wonders for the neighborhood.
Of course with the impending plan to castrate Commerce and Elm down to one lane each direction it's going to be gridlock all day anyway, so I guess it really won't matter.
I think the “team tear it down” folks need to push for tear downs on the highways they use the most. Let’s see how they enjoy the “rerouting” thing.
Re: I-345
Posted: 04 Nov 2022 16:50
by eburress
It's fantastic driving...and walking, living, etc...around cities where highways have been removed. The "we can't live without our highways" people should visit some of these places.
Re: I-345
Posted: 06 Nov 2022 22:59
by dzh
mhainli wrote:Hannibal Lecter wrote:dzh wrote:I'm part of "Team Tear It Down." I truly believe that traffic will get rerouted and it's closure will only significantly help Downtown and Deep Ellum.
Yeah, adding tens of thousands of cars a day on the street grid will work wonders for the neighborhood.
Of course with the impending plan to castrate Commerce and Elm down to one lane each direction it's going to be gridlock all day anyway, so I guess it really won't matter.
I think the “team tear it down” folks need to push for tear downs on the highways they use the most. Let’s see how they enjoy the “rerouting” thing.
I use Highway 183 the most, I'd be more than happy to see it torn down (even though it's tear down would not lead to nearly as much economic development as tearing down I-45). In my dream world, the highways in Dallas would be replaced (or have some lanes removed) for S-Bahns and Rail Rapid Transit. I know damn well that TXDOT would never allow something like this however.
Re: I-345
Posted: 09 Nov 2022 18:59
by cowboyeagle05
I use it all the time to run to Garland from Uptown. Tear it down. I'll take one of the 50 other routes to get there.
Re: I-345
Posted: 10 Nov 2022 10:18
by potatocoins
eburress wrote:It's fantastic driving...and walking, living, etc...around cities where highways have been removed. The "we can't live without our highways" people should visit some of these places.
Lol, it's not like people don't already know this.
The argument is over if the repercussions of removing a highway are worth it or not. We can't just ignore the negative repercussions and assume less highways is always better.
Re: I-345
Posted: 10 Nov 2022 10:50
by R1070
potatocoins wrote:eburress wrote:It's fantastic driving...and walking, living, etc...around cities where highways have been removed. The "we can't live without our highways" people should visit some of these places.
Lol, it's not like people don't already know this.
The argument is over if the repercussions of removing a highway are worth it or not. We can't just ignore the negative repercussions and assume less highways is always better.
Removing the highway would benefit the affected area, but it would not be good for the overall region. I'd be fine with the burying plan if there's a way to support structures being built on top in some areas. All greenspace doesn't make the best economic sense.
Re: I-345
Posted: 10 Nov 2022 12:00
by eburress
^ I'd also be fine with burying the freeway in a way to allow for construction above.
Fwiw, I don't believe the assumed or perceived negative regional effects are objective fact. I've seen enough studies suggesting there were little to no negative regional effects on freeway removal.
Re: I-345
Posted: 10 Nov 2022 12:13
by potatocoins
I don't think anyone thinks they are objective fact either though. The disagreement on the removal just comes from people not agreeing on what impact it will have and whether or not it would be worth it.
I wonder if these studies are looking to the long term. DFW is already struggling to grow and develop towards the south, so would removing I-345 just stifle southern growth even more going forward?
Re: I-345
Posted: 24 May 2023 17:51
by Hannibal Lecter
I-345 decision: Dallas approves TxDOT recommendation to remodel interstateDallas has greenlit a Texas Department of Transportation recommendation to remodel Interstate 345 despite calls from some to take another year to keep studying other options.
The Dallas City Council voted 14-0 Wednesday for the state transportation department to move forward with an estimated $1 billion plan of tearing down the 1.4-mile elevated highway that runs between downtown and Deep Ellum and rebuilding it in a below-grade trench with new street overpasses above. It’s referred to as the hybrid option, incorporating elements of other proposals like lowering the roadway or replacing it entirely with more ground-level boulevards. Mayor Eric Johnson was absent during Wednesday’s meeting.
The City Council added several conditions to its support, such as a council committee being briefed by TxDOT on the project’s progress once every six months while its being designed, that TxDOT incorporates city policies and strategies like the racial equity plan and economic development policy into the project, and that the state transit agency study ways to reroute trucks off I-345.
...
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politic ... nterstate/
Re: I-345
Posted: 25 May 2023 12:46
by Tnexster
This looks like a complicated project and at least five years minimum before start.
Re: I-345
Posted: 25 May 2023 13:07
by homeworld1031tx
Any news on how this is going to interact with the I-30 canyon rebuilding? Does the I-30 project include reconstruction of the I-30/I-345 interchange?
One of the most frustrating roadway strethces I've seen in the metro is I-35 from 635 north towards PGBT. That stretch of highway seems to have been under constant construction for the last 10 years. First it was rebuilding the Belt Line Road overpass, and then they added toll lanes, and now they're rebuilding the main line lanes. The frustrating part stems from my view of each project not taking any of the near future projects into account at all, and numerous stretches seem to be getting rebuilt right after construction was completed on them to accomodate the further down the line projects.
I really hope the infrastructure planners on the Canyon project are mindful of what may come down the line with the I-345 rebuild.
Re: I-345
Posted: 25 May 2023 19:51
by tamtagon
I'm okay with the sunken option. I would rather have reconstructed bridges, but whatever. Just get it done.
Re: I-345
Posted: 25 May 2023 20:14
by CTroyMathis
Well, at least we have guaranteed thread watering for another 12-20 years.
Re: I-345
Posted: 26 May 2023 22:06
by I45Tex
About the Mill Creek Drainage Relief Tunnel (to be completed 2025 now) it was said that it would improve State Thomas' downstream drainage systems in East Dallas from a 2-year to a 100-year flood capacity readiness. If it is also going to drain I-345 and I-30 canyons now, that capacity readiness number may go right back down again.
Re: I-345
Posted: 24 Jan 2024 19:03
by Redblock
This is somewhat related to the I-345 rebuild.
NCTCOG is calling for input for connecting Downtown, Deep Ellum, and Fair Park.
https://www.facebook.com/10006460432296 ... l/?app=fbl
Re: I-345
Posted: 26 Jan 2024 06:38
by eburress
Bury or remove all the freeways through there. Bam. Connection accomplished. I wonder what they'll need input on next?
Re: I-345
Posted: 19 Mar 2024 19:15
by wbarch
Re: I-345
Posted: 19 Mar 2024 20:43
by tamtagon
Beautiful engineering. Ridiculous solution.
Re: I-345
Posted: 20 Mar 2024 09:38
by IcedCowboyCoffee
Well if anyone was curious, the flyover is in essence identical to the one they showed us two years ago except they removed some of the weird concrete caps and re-emphasized that the Carpenter Park "extension" isn't being paid by them.
Carpenter park's future looks bleak.
Re: I-345
Posted: 24 Mar 2024 21:12
by eburress
What an absolute effing mess. So ridiculously stupid.
Re: I-345
Posted: 24 Mar 2024 22:33
by I45Tex
During public comment my comment to them was basically that for a grid of all origins and destinations, there is almost always already a better bypass built for travelers to travel than to take I-30 *to* Central or Schepps to your desired destination. Likewise than to take Central or Schepps to I-30 to your destination. And an enormous amount of neighborhood would be unlocked by just letting I-30 cross 345 with no interchange ramps whatsoever, and giving back their four massive corners for urban infill. Cesar Chavez @ I-30 interchange wouldn't be converted to a skatepark this go-round.
Re: I-345
Posted: 05 Apr 2024 12:45
by Hannibal Lecter
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/edit ... ion-plans/"We wish city and state officials hadn’t been so quick to dismiss a smarter alternative. A slimmer elevated highway that is designed for underpass pedestrian crossings from Deep Ellum to downtown is better and cheaper than a massive trench that could divide the two neighborhoods for decades."
Ok, this is scary. The elevator-doesn't-quite-make-it-to-the-top-floor-types on the DMN Editorial Board are now agreeing with me???
Maybe this was supposed to be published on April 1?
Re: I-345
Posted: 05 Apr 2024 13:01
by Hannibal Lecter
I45Tex wrote:During public comment my comment to them was basically that for a grid of all origins and destinations, there is almost always already a better bypass built for travelers to travel than to take I-30 *to* Central or Schepps to your desired destination. Likewise than to take Central or Schepps to I-30 to your destination. And an enormous amount of neighborhood would be unlocked by just letting I-30 cross 345 with no interchange ramps whatsoever, and giving back their four massive corners for urban infill. Cesar Chavez @ I-30 interchange wouldn't be converted to a skatepark this go-round.
Personal experience: To get from the core of Deep Ellum to northbound NCX, most of the time it's quicker/easier for being to drive the "wrong" direction (east) to get on I-30 at First Avenue and take 345 to NCX.
Also, the latest proposal will make it harder to get to Deep Ellum from NCX by removing the current Live Oak exit, moving the exit back to the Woodall Rodgers interchange.
Re: I-345
Posted: 05 Apr 2024 18:07
by LuvBigD
My biggest problem with this design is the way they have Cesar Chavez running over the middle of the trench before descending into the lower lanes. It seems this would make it more difficult to add deck parks over the trench in the future.
Re: I-345
Posted: 07 Apr 2024 23:00
by dzh
I really think we're shooting ourselves in the foot with not removing this small interstate in its entirety. I wish that coalition (Forward Dallas, or whatever that organization was from a years ago) would organize itself again in opposition to anything but removing this freeway. It's been demonstrated time and time again that removing freeways leads to way more economic development.
The highway lobby has really hurt our country with their never ending expansion and repaving projects. Just imagine if we had dedicated a fraction of that budget they received to rail and mass transit...we would not have nearly the level of endless sprawl that we currently have today.
Re: I-345
Posted: 08 Apr 2024 16:24
by Hannibal Lecter
dzh wrote:Just imagine if we had dedicated a fraction of that budget they received to rail and mass transit...we would not have nearly the level of endless sprawl that we currently have today.
You need to lay off the Kool-Aid. DART spends $1 billion per year to move 2-3% of area commuters. Their own numbers. And I don't see any 18-wheelers on the DART tracks.
Village Idiot Patrick Kennedy had a conniption about the the latest $1.6 billion estimate for rebuilding I-345, a highway that already moves around 200,000 people (plus freight) each day, with minimal operating costs. But only crickets about the DART silver line, costing $1.9 billion to move a projected 5,600 people a day. Of course DART rail has never come close to meeting ridership projections on any rail line, and systemwide fares only cover about 12-13% of the huge operating costs and 0% of capital costs.
Re: I-345
Posted: 09 Apr 2024 10:30
by eburress
I agree with dzh. This freeway needs to go.
Re: I-345
Posted: 09 Apr 2024 17:01
by IcedCowboyCoffee
LuvBigD wrote:My biggest problem with this design is the way they have Cesar Chavez running over the middle of the trench before descending into the lower lanes. It seems this would make it more difficult to add deck parks over the trench in the future.
That stretch of Cesar Chavez really is the worst part of it. I can see what their thinking was (It's the direct feeder from the EMC corridor), but come on there was no other way?
This would look so much better with the park just extended over this section entirely. I can see how this would be much less efficient but I'm desperate man the current plan looks dreadful to me
Surely there is
someplace further down to squeeze in compact on- and off-ramps to take some of the EMC and east quarter traffic so not every single person is funneling towards Cesar Chavez.
345a.jpg
Re: I-345
Posted: 09 Apr 2024 19:41
by Hannibal Lecter
Keep in mind that a primary objective in this design is minimizing the footprint. What you're seeing here is Cesar Chavez following almost the exact same route it does now, just above I-345 instead of below it. You move it to either side and you're going to have to acquire more land (and probably some buildings), bringing down the wrath of Patrick Kennedy and his disciples.
Re: I-345
Posted: 10 Apr 2024 10:29
by LuvBigD
Instead of having this massive road run over the middle can they instead run a road cantilevered over the main lanes below. Besides the main lanes are supposed to be 60 feet below grade. This should give them enough room to drop that roadway below grade so that a park can be built over the top of it.
Re: I-345
Posted: 10 Apr 2024 14:13
by Hannibal Lecter
Live Oak and Pacific are less than 1000' apart at that point. There's no way you could have intersections at both and do what you propose with any kind of reasonable grade.
Re: I-345
Posted: 11 Apr 2024 08:28
by MC_ScattCat
I still maintain TXDOT should just do a Addison Airport style tunnel for this section. You get the highway, the land, and some of the cost covered by commuters. Is it expensive? Yes. Will this happen? No, but would please both sides of the debate.
Re: I-345
Posted: 11 Apr 2024 10:35
by eburress
Tunneling the section in question, or the whole thing, would be an improvement.
Re: I-345
Posted: 11 Apr 2024 19:23
by dzh
Tunneling with zero exits, or just getting rid of it is what needs to happen. Too much prime real estate to allow a stupid canyon. Milwaukee is planning to get rid of another one of their freeways through downtown, and I bet it ends up being a boon for development.
Also Hannibal, you're right about DART being a piece of shit. That being said, that doesn't mean that rail isn't a solution or can't be the answer if done properly. TXDOT is planning $32.7 Billion on highways in 2024 and 2025. Imagine if rail got $10 billion of that (and with the caveat that it had a planner that was actually connecting places of population with places people need to travel to). 200,000 commuters use the I-345 daily. The 6 train in New York (pre-covid) got 1.3mm riders per day. The reality is that heavy rail (when planned and placed properly) can move people way faster than a personal automobile can. The 6-Train is a great example of a train that goes exactly where it needs to go, and consequently has high ridership.
If I could take a train to work and it saved me 15 minutes off my commute, I sure as hell would take the train instead of drive everyday. That's how rail needs to be approached in cities when developing it.
Re: I-345
Posted: 12 Apr 2024 00:10
by I45Tex
And yet the 6 train, which was the only game in town for train access to destinations such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the UN Headquarters, the Ford Foundation, the Frick, and the whole Upper East Side, is sort of a bygone era's legacy, because look at how much it's cost to get the Second Avenue Subway in there and how few places in other American cities have landmarks that are anywhere near as islanded from modeshare competition.
Austin, which does have a massive problem with its overreliance on I-35 and Mopac, passed a massive subway referendum and yet has already basically given up on most of what they promised to attempt before it passed, or am I misremembering?
Re: I-345
Posted: 12 Apr 2024 08:34
by MC_ScattCat
The only reason (besides cost) that I could think there would be a reason they can't have a toll tunnel is that massive storm water tunnel going from the Fed Reserve building towards east Dallas. I don't know how deep that thing is but I know it's a massive tunnel.
Re: I-345
Posted: 16 Apr 2024 12:22
by eburress
That drain tunnel's depth is 120ish feet so I'm not sure it would conflict.
Some interesting examples of highway removal. I personally feel like I-345 needs to go and be replaced with a nice boulevard. Whether there's an express tunnel or not, I don't care.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOpjDSUmPtU
Re: I-345
Posted: 18 Apr 2024 00:43
by quixomniac
eburress wrote:That drain tunnel's depth is 120ish feet so I'm not sure it would conflict.
Some interesting examples of highway removal. I personally feel like I-345 needs to go and be replaced with a nice boulevard. Whether there's an express tunnel or not, I don't care.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOpjDSUmPtU
I saw that video too. he continously mentioned that a key reason those highways could be replaced with a boulevard was that they carried so few cars. His 7000 cars per day example succeeded. His 100,000 cars per day did not succeed. at least not yet.
i-345 carries 180,000 cars. not to mention its a functional component of managing traffic around downtown.
and essential for anyone living in south dallas going to jobs up north.
and yes alot could be done to mitigate its effects on adjacet development.
Re: I-345
Posted: 18 Apr 2024 09:03
by The_Overdog
The number of cars that pass through is almost completely irrelevant though. It's not '180,000 cars passing into downtown from I345' - most are just passing through, and there are other routes they could take. It's a route to jobs up north is not particularly valuable either - if getting people up north is a laudable goal, then they should have built the stupid tollway.
That's why someone in city leadership needs to make this decision - because 'carrying 200,000 cars to points around the city of Dallas' being more vital to the city of Dallas than 'rerouting traffic and opening land near downtown for development' may be true, but no-one has even sort of answered that question.