Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

User avatar
jrd1964
Posts: 74
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 06:38

Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby jrd1964 » 09 May 2017 21:04

(whatever is happening with) Pearl/Cesar Chavez expressways


Saw this passage in another thread, and it reminded me to post (because I've been forgetful about that). Did the city run out of $$$, or are the workers on extended coffee break? The truck that caused the gas line rupture and fire *several* weeks ago is still there also. I remember hearing about the supposed 'old basements found that needed filling in first' excuse, but that was months and months ago. Enough time has passed that all the work could have been long ago done by now.

User avatar
joshua.dodd
Posts: 240
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 01:11

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby joshua.dodd » 10 May 2017 12:56

I've been wondering about this myself. It's also a blight to the area leaving a burned out truck sitting there.

User avatar
theoryNine
Posts: 23
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 14:57

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby theoryNine » 11 May 2017 20:32

joshua.dodd wrote:I've been wondering about this myself. It's also a blight to the area leaving a burned out truck sitting there.


The burnt husk of the truck is finally gone.

User avatar
jrd1964
Posts: 74
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 06:38

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby jrd1964 » 04 Nov 2017 12:40

In recent days, there has *finally* been some activity on the project. Wood forms, rebar, and even some concrete has appeared along Cesar Chavez. Hopefully this is a good sign that things will pick up and get done sooner rather than later.

User avatar
joshua.dodd
Posts: 240
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 01:11

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby joshua.dodd » 06 Nov 2017 22:47

What's caused it to stall for so long?

DPatel304
Posts: 460
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby DPatel304 » 06 Nov 2017 23:04

Is this the same thing as the Carpenter Park project, or something separate? I don't believe I'm familiar with this.

User avatar
jrd1964
Posts: 74
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 06:38

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby jrd1964 » 07 Nov 2017 14:08

It's somewhat related. The old cut-throughs that were part of Carpenter Park that got Central-Chavez traffic to Pearl and vice-versa were removed a while ago. Also the rusty metal-sheet sculpture that ran through the park was removed in advance of the park redo. The part I actually referenced up the thread is just to the south of Carpenter Park. Cesar Chavez between Commerce and Pacific is being widened to accomodate 2-way traffic, and Pearl will subsequently become 2-way in the same vicinity.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 286
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby tanzoak » 07 Nov 2017 14:28

Wait why are we widening Cesar Chavez. What fresh hell is this?

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 286
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby tanzoak » 07 Nov 2017 14:31

I always think those townhomes would be really nice places to live.. except that you'd be living on a seven-lane highway. Thanks but no thanks. And now we want to extend it?

cowboyeagle05
Posts: 462
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 08:45

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 07 Nov 2017 15:16

a six-lane divided boulevard with turn lanes, wider sidewalks, landscaping, pedestrian lighting, benches, trash receptacles, signal upgrades, storm drainage, water and wastewater improvements for Cesar Chavez Boulevard (Central Expressway) from Commerce Street to Live Oak Street and Pearl Expressway from Pacific Avenue to Live Oak Street. The contract will also include the removal of the existing pavement sections and be replaced by sod inside the Carpenter Plaza Park. One-way traffic operation on Live Oak Street will be converted to a two-way traffic operation from Olive Street to Cesar Chavez Boulevard (Central Expressway).

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 286
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby tanzoak » 07 Nov 2017 17:43

cowboyeagle05 wrote:
words


It was more of an existential why than a literal one.

It's cute that they're including benches on the seven-lane road.

The wider sidewalks are nice, if width is a given. But it would have been nicer to just make the existing four-lane road into a two-way street and not add the additional three* lanes.

*They're calling it a six-lane road, but they're neglecting to include the center turn lane. Probably because a seven-lane road sounds terrible.

DPatel304
Posts: 460
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby DPatel304 » 07 Nov 2017 19:07

Not very pedestrian friendly, but, then again, this area is pretty much right up against I-345 anyway, and wasn't pedestrian friendly to begin with. Maybe the silver lining is, is that it might encourage some dense development between Cesar Chavez and I-345. I think this sliver of land won't be pedestrian friendly, but, who knows, maybe there is demand for an office building or apartment building with quick and easy access to get in and out of Downtown. I'm pretty sure that's half the reason why the Harwood district has been so successful.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 286
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby tanzoak » 08 Nov 2017 01:38

DPatel304 wrote:Not very pedestrian friendly, but, then again, this area is pretty much right up against I-345 anyway, and wasn't pedestrian friendly to begin with. Maybe the silver lining is, is that it might encourage some dense development between Cesar Chavez and I-345. I think this sliver of land won't be pedestrian friendly, but, who knows, maybe there is demand for an office building or apartment building with quick and easy access to get in and out of Downtown. I'm pretty sure that's half the reason why the Harwood district has been so successful.


Eh, seven lanes is good for regional transportation, but it's a big negative for residential development and even commercial (see for examples AT&T asking for a lane reduction for 4 to 3 on Commerce). Most of the streets with most of the deveopment in VP/Uptown are on 3 or 4 lane roads. McKinnon is the exception, and I'd say the development along there has been in spite of its 5 lanes, not because of it (plus the rumblings that Harwood wants a road diet). 7 lanes is even less appealing to development, though I suppose the landscaping mitigates some of the negative impact.

It could still be a net positive for the neighborhood if it solved some significant access issues of getting into and out of the neighborhood, but I suspect that 4 lanes was enough capacity and just some configuration changes could have addressed whatever problems there were.

DPatel304
Posts: 460
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby DPatel304 » 08 Nov 2017 09:24

Ah ok, well, in that case, there is no silver lining. For the record, I wasn't for this expansion, just trying to see the positive side of it.

But yes, I would have been fine with an expansion to a 4 lane two-way street instead, and then putting the southern part of the road on a diet.

cowboyeagle05
Posts: 462
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 08:45

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 08 Nov 2017 09:49

If I remember Angela Hunt fought to make sure the project included pedestrian design elements including crosswalks that actually work. You can only fight against the car driven model so much at once. She was also still fighting the good fight on multiple other projects including things like the Mockingbird bridge.

Plus look at it this way if we do get the I-345 tear down this is the kind of boulevard that TXDOT will most likely demand and get in return to make traffic work in this part of Downtown. The bad thing isn't I never saw the actual drawings for the redo nor can I google it enough to find anything but Dallas Observer discussions over it.

What was told to be built and dressed up in lipstick could be worse or better than expected...

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 286
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby tanzoak » 08 Nov 2017 11:19

cowboyeagle05 wrote:If I remember Angela Hunt fought to make sure the project included pedestrian design elements including crosswalks that actually work. You can only fight against the car driven model so much at once. She was also still fighting the good fight on multiple other projects including things like the Mockingbird bridge.

Plus look at it this way if we do get the I-345 tear down this is the kind of boulevard that TXDOT will most likely demand and get in return to make traffic work in this part of Downtown. The bad thing isn't I never saw the actual drawings for the redo nor can I google it enough to find anything but Dallas Observer discussions over it.

What was told to be built and dressed up in lipstick could be worse or better than expected...


I'm not saying it needed to have a road diet, just that it was unnecessary to add additional lanes.

A road like this would be acceptable for an I-345 teardown because of the whole regional transportation bit, but Cesar Chavez doesn't play that role.

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 108
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 10 Nov 2017 10:48

tanzoak wrote:A road like this would be acceptable for an I-345 teardown because of the whole regional transportation bit, but Cesar Chavez doesn't play that role.


The con man leading the I-345 fight and his idiot followers try to justify the removal economically by saying the ROW would be used for billions of dollars in real estate development. No new thoroughfare there. So Chavez and Good-Latimer would have to carry the load.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 286
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby tanzoak » 10 Nov 2017 16:15

Hannibal Lecter wrote:
tanzoak wrote:A road like this would be acceptable for an I-345 teardown because of the whole regional transportation bit, but Cesar Chavez doesn't play that role.


The con man leading the I-345 fight and his idiot followers try to justify the removal economically by saying the ROW would be used for billions of dollars in real estate development. No new thoroughfare there. So Chavez and Good-Latimer would have to carry the load.


What are you talking about? Yes, there would be a new thoroughfare there. A 6-lane divided boulevard (so 7 lanes including turn lanes). That's the same size as Northwest Highway (though presumably prettier and with better ped infra). That would still free up a lot of acreage for development because interstate highways take up a ton of space.

Leading your argument with ad hominems is not very compelling. Maybe you're highly skeptical that it's a good idea, and that's fine, but it's not a bunch of idiots with no background in the field who are saying it might be a good idea. TxDOT and HNTB/Kimley-Horn's traffic engineers, for instance, found a limited overall increase in congestion compared to sinking it below grade in their preliminary study.

User avatar
The_Overdog
Posts: 172
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 14:55

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby The_Overdog » 12 Nov 2017 09:47

Maybe you're highly skeptical that it's a good idea, and that's fine, but it's not a bunch of idiots with no background in the field who are saying it might be a good idea.


The traffic loads on most of the city of Dallas' streets, outside of highways, pales in comparison to the traffic carried on suburban roads even though most are designed the same/have the same number of lanes, etc. Essentially Dallas has been created as a city where the only way to get anywhere is by using a highway. So driving by highway is the only thing they know.

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 80
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 13 Nov 2017 12:40

tanzoak wrote:TxDOT and HNTB/Kimley-Horn's traffic engineers, for instance, found a limited overall increase in congestion compared to sinking it below grade in their preliminary study.


This is the statement we went round and round for 2 pages about. I completely disagree with this statement. Its apples to oranges, and the statement is a false generalization.

Apples - tear down + this + that + this and that + that and this and a few other things

=

Oranges - Trench

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 286
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby tanzoak » 13 Nov 2017 12:58

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
tanzoak wrote:TxDOT and HNTB/Kimley-Horn's traffic engineers, for instance, found a limited overall increase in congestion compared to sinking it below grade in their preliminary study.


This is the statement we went round and round for 2 pages about. I completely disagree with this statement. Its apples to oranges, and the statement is a false generalization.

Apples - tear down + this + that + this and that + that and this and a few other things

=

Oranges - Trench


Dude, just stop with this.

Yes, the traffic models for both alternatives included projects besides the alternative itself. The same projects--i.e. I-30 rebuild, Lowest Stemmons, Southern Gateway--for both. I'm sorry that you would prefer that they didn't include those, but regardless they're in both. Also, those projects are definitely happening, and TxDOT is announcing $3B in funding for them later this month. So..

Just stop.

There's no need for "round and round" because this is very clear. And also is the only way anyone would ever do alternative analysis. I'm sorry that you're apparently having difficulty parsing it, but stop fake newsing up multiple threads.

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 80
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 13 Nov 2017 13:01

TxDOT and HNTB/Kimley-Horn's traffic engineers, for instance, found a limited overall increase in congestion, if you rebuild the entire Dallas freeway system around it, compared to sinking it below grade and doing virtually nothing else, in their preliminary study"



Fixed it for you.

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 80
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 13 Nov 2017 13:04

And by the way you did agree at one point with me about the differences in the scenarios...

tanzoak wrote:
Alex Rodriguez wrote:And by the way, I'm not saying that anyone is trying to pull a fast one. What I'm saying is that for each option to have basically the same traffic impact, per the report:

**Modify - you remove some ramps for CBD access
**Below Grade - Trench I-345, partial rebuild of I45 and 366/75 interchanges. Major work on Ross
**Tear down - I-30 Project Pegasus, Removal of I45 from MLK to 30 w/ Surface Street connections, Rebuild of 366/75, Major work on Good Latimer, Major work on Cesar Chavez.

If you do the above to each of the 3 options you end up with basically the same traffic numbers for the freeway system. The surface street traffic still goes up in the Tear Down option even in this report.


Yes, that is correct. Those are the 3 projects.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 286
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby tanzoak » 13 Nov 2017 13:07

Alex Rodriguez wrote:TxDOT and HNTB/Kimley-Horn's traffic engineers, for instance, found a limited overall increase in congestion, if you rebuild the entire Dallas freeway system around it, compared to sinking it below grade and doing virtually nothing else, in their preliminary study"



Fixed it for you.


Ugh, I'm just sinking to the troll bait, but so that everyone understands this not actually the case, here is an easy to read graphic.

Image

*System for each scenario assumes the following projects or
operational improvements are constructed: Southern Gateway,
Lowest Stemmons, and Trinity Parkway 4 Lane 45MPH concept.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 286
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby tanzoak » 13 Nov 2017 13:08

Alex Rodriguez wrote:And by the way you did agree at one point with me about the differences in the scenarios...

tanzoak wrote:
Alex Rodriguez wrote:And by the way, I'm not saying that anyone is trying to pull a fast one. What I'm saying is that for each option to have basically the same traffic impact, per the report:

**Modify - you remove some ramps for CBD access
**Below Grade - Trench I-345, partial rebuild of I45 and 366/75 interchanges. Major work on Ross
**Tear down - I-30 Project Pegasus, Removal of I45 from MLK to 30 w/ Surface Street connections, Rebuild of 366/75, Major work on Good Latimer, Major work on Cesar Chavez.

If you do the above to each of the 3 options you end up with basically the same traffic numbers for the freeway system. The surface street traffic still goes up in the Tear Down option even in this report.


Yes, that is correct. Those are the 3 projects.


Yes, those are still correct descriptions of the alternatives. The fact that you worded it to sound like the tear-down one is a crazy intense project compared to a ho-hum below-grade alternative doesn't change the underlying facts.

User avatar
dd_dweller
Posts: 29
Joined: 24 Oct 2016 10:52

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby dd_dweller » 15 Nov 2017 13:20

Does anyone know what the streets going to look like once its finished? I like that the side of Cesar Chavez by the farmers market has trees in the middle. Will this new road have that as well or will it all just be a huge rode?

cowboyeagle05
Posts: 462
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 08:45

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 16 Nov 2017 10:13

I have been honestly pursuing the answer to that question for over a month. I can find all the articles talking about the debate on the project related to the historical buildings they moved but I can no longer find even the blueprints they once partially revealed when the council voted on final concept. I believe they never officially released final renderings/plans the council just discussed things that city staff noted and moved ahead with the project. I just remember Angela Hunt arguing for at least some pedestrian amenities that would help ensure the wider road wasn't just a high-speed roadway.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 286
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Postby tanzoak » 16 Nov 2017 14:08

From articles I've read (nothing official), I think they're essentially just extending the design of that southern portion of Cesar Chavez northward.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Login