Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

I-345

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 578
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: I-345

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 20 Dec 2019 15:22

^ Not likely to happen. Congress changed the law a few years ago so it's not impossible, but the FHWA isn't fond of tolls on Interstates they already paid for.

One thing that the D Magazine crowd doesn't like to discuss is that if TXDOT were to just remove the highway apparently we'd have to pay the feds back for their 90%.

User avatar
quixomniac
Posts: 131
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 21:24

Re: I-345

Postby quixomniac » 20 Dec 2019 16:09

muncien wrote:I think 'cut & cover' is what is meant by 'tunnel' in most of these references. Maybe I'm wrong. But, I don't think anyone ever seriously considered TBMs be used for this.

That said, TXDOT's 'trench' proposal seems to only be half of what is really needed. I'm curious how much the sale of land from some of the bloated footprint sections of I345 could go toward funding the 'cap' of the trench. It seems like those parcels would go for quite a bit if adjacent to a massive deck park type setup...

Maybe some sort of reinvestment zone is in order here. I'd much prefer the sale of state property and increased property taxes be used to fund the project than all the proceeds simply go to speculators that sit on property and let it waste away while waiting on the windfall.


Thus far, none of these are TxDOT's "proposals" since it is too early to say. All the renderings and schematics are from CityMAP, and it looks like they only studied removing it completely and burying/trenching the highway with some mention of a few deck parks.

One of the questions they answered in the article was that the land belongs to the state, but can be purchased by the city and maybe then auctioned off with strict restrictions on land use. PErhaps this is one way to fund it. I like your idea of property taxes to fund the project too. Speculators sitting on land have really killed downtown with all the empty parking lots that could have been ANYTHING else.

Hannibal Lecter wrote: One thing that the D Magazine crowd doesn't like to discuss is that if TXDOT were to just remove the highway apparently we'd have to pay the feds back for their 90%.


Any sources on that? I think that's a very important point. DMagazine selectively showing, not showing information can be used to control the narritive on whatever journalistic bias someone has.

User avatar
quixomniac
Posts: 131
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 21:24

Re: I-345

Postby quixomniac » 20 Dec 2019 16:53

I thought I'd repost these from the CityMAP study done in 2016.
Someone had actually posted it on page 1 of this discussion, but its been years!!!
These are the renderings used in the DMagazine article and the TxDOT meeting docs.
Hopefully itll help recontextualize some arguments.
Also apparently there was a vote in 2017 that limited our options to below grade trench or full removal.

Tunnel argument is exceedingly expensive because you will also have to tunnel below I30, since that is also below grade. It would become a really really steep tunnel. Which would be difficult to engineer. I think electricon made this argument.

Removal, is obviously supported by CityMAP and DMagazine as the renderings show. But its also important to look at the map.
removal2.png
removed.png

It looks like they want to break I45 and feed it into cesar chavez, good latimer and Canton? before they reach downtown. In this sense, it makes more sense since 25% goes into downtown.
But this doesnt make sense for thru traffic (38%). Since this study was made in 2016, I feel its a bit outdated since the portion of good latimer that would take the thru traffic past downtown dallas ( elm to live oak) is now surrounded by new bars and is a GIANT traffic chokepoint. This portion is where all my anxiety about removal comes from. Also there is no mention of Fitzugh,peak, haskell in this portion of the study, perhaps it is in the I30 study?

Buried/belowgrade/trench in the article are shown as this rendering. Which looks WAY too wide, woodall rogers is nowhere this bad, but it is also important to look at the map. Since the main argument for removal is enhancing the street grid, i think most people think of the commerce/main/elm/pacific area. In the map , this section is very narrow, more like Woodall rogers,
trench.png
buried.png

They dont call for deck/bridge all of I345, since because of the ramps connecting to woodall rogers make that impossible from live oak to ross. But decking might be possible along commerce, elm, main. In that sense I feel trencing/below grade is the more reasonable choice with "capping" or parks in strategic sections

Basically, the rendering with the super wide trenched highway really turned me off from the idea, because it showed a portion of the highway that could never be capped because of the ramps until i looked the map that is and it looks more reasonable. And while the removal rendering looks nicer, i think its very short sighted of the reality of today's good latimer thru deep ellum.
I think if the removal is to go forward, they need to do a better job of this. They basically magically erased I345's footprint and put developments where a road that could handle better traffic should be.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 106
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 26 Dec 2019 09:29

My heartburn about removal comes from the fact that freeway traffic southbound on 75 would be restricted to a one lane cloverleaf ramp at Woodall and 35. That would need to be rebuilt, along with the Canyon.

Trenching is easily the better option
Last edited by Alex Rodriguez on 26 Dec 2019 22:53, edited 1 time in total.

cowboyeagle05
Posts: 2434
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 08:45
Location: Dallas

Re: I-345

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 26 Dec 2019 10:09

Trenching is not easily the better option either at all. It is as problematic and as pricey as removal with all the major changes that would have to be made to make a tunnel/trench an option work not to mention only temporarily solves traffic woes not solves any of them.

I will not walk away from the removal option because some people are afraid of the idea. Cigarettes are addicting and so are highways and their continued dependency problem by everyone. They both seem insurmountable problems and needed day to day when you are in the throws of your addiction. It is possible that on the other side that things could work out if we actually stop dismissing the idea and actually try a new solution to a old problem.
“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell”

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 106
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 26 Dec 2019 22:51

Im not afraid of removal. Its a fact, without i-345 your freeway option southbound is a single cloverleaf ramp at I-35 and WR. Thats it. TxDOT would basically be derelict to tear down, with the rest of the freeway system in its current configuration.

User avatar
TNWE
Posts: 282
Joined: 03 May 2017 09:42

Re: I-345

Postby TNWE » 30 Dec 2019 11:35

quixomniac wrote:I think if the removal is to go forward, they need to do a better job of this. They basically magically erased I345's footprint and put developments where a road that could handle better traffic should be.


That's just the thing, though- The DMag/Coalition for a New Dallas crowd doesn't CARE about what happens, so long as they get to brag about tearing out a freeway to their friends in NYC and SF. All their claims about "induced demand" ignore the fact that that "extra" traffic caused by additional freeway lanes is economic activity and opportunity that wouldn't otherwise exist, contributing to the continued stability of the regional economy.

Removing 345 isn't going to unlock hundreds of new towers and development downtown (if there were truly such demand, the Spire WOULD BE BUILT ALREADY). The anti-345 crowd don't actually believe that there's pent-up demand for the land under 345, it's just a lazy fig leaf thrown on the plan to make them sound like free market capitalists, and not a bunch of wannabe bureaucrats who believe every Dallasite must be made to comply with their urbanist fantasies.

I45Tex
Posts: 323
Joined: 26 Jan 2017 05:52

Re: I-345

Postby I45Tex » 30 Dec 2019 11:54

TNWE, I think that that's all well-spoken and well thought-out.
I mostly haven't participated in this debate, but isn't it also correct to say this?
The level of pent-up pre-leasing demand to finance Plaza-of-the-Americas-scale monsterpieces, like Spire wants to build, is not the same as -- to the point that it really means nothing about -- the level of pent-up demand for the same square footage of incremental (where we find what's in demand by financing and leasing it in a process of thousand little pieces with different owners), flexible, dense downtown traditional neighborhood development?
Last edited by I45Tex on 30 Dec 2019 16:47, edited 1 time in total.

Tnexster
Posts: 2657
Joined: 22 Oct 2016 16:33
Location: Dallas

Re: I-345

Postby Tnexster » 30 Dec 2019 16:09

TNWE wrote:
quixomniac wrote:I think if the removal is to go forward, they need to do a better job of this. They basically magically erased I345's footprint and put developments where a road that could handle better traffic should be.


That's just the thing, though- The DMag/Coalition for a New Dallas crowd doesn't CARE about what happens, so long as they get to brag about tearing out a freeway to their friends in NYC and SF. All their claims about "induced demand" ignore the fact that that "extra" traffic caused by additional freeway lanes is economic activity and opportunity that wouldn't otherwise exist, contributing to the continued stability of the regional economy.

Removing 345 isn't going to unlock hundreds of new towers and development downtown (if there were truly such demand, the Spire WOULD BE BUILT ALREADY). The anti-345 crowd don't actually believe that there's pent-up demand for the land under 345, it's just a lazy fig leaf thrown on the plan to make them sound like free market capitalists, and not a bunch of wannabe bureaucrats who believe every Dallasite must be made to comply with their urbanist fantasies.


This is spot on....

User avatar
quixomniac
Posts: 131
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 21:24

Re: I-345

Postby quixomniac » 31 Dec 2019 02:11

Alex Rodriguez wrote:Im not afraid of removal. Its a fact, without i-345 your freeway option southbound is a single cloverleaf ramp at I-35 and WR. Thats it. TxDOT would basically be derelict to tear down, with the rest of the freeway system in its current configuration.


Is this the cloverleaf ramp?
clover.png


I think this is a very legitimate concern, and not included in the CityMAP study.
Their thinking is that everyone going south from 75 will push thru the grid which was previously a 2-5 minute across that part of town into a 15 minute drive throug 5-10 street lights which could obviously add more.
My thinking is that unless you are going to downtown or deep ellum, you will completely avoid that area to go across, and overwhelm that clover ramp that is single lane. It would honestly look like the nightmare ramp onto Dallas North Tollway which is always clogged no matter what day it is. So then the logical conclusion would be to make it, 2-3 lanes, but all that traffic would completely overwhelm an already strained section of the mixmaster

Then youd have the same situation going the opposite direction, trying to go from south to northbound 75, on the opposite clover ramp, which is also 1 lane.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 106
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 31 Dec 2019 08:44

Yes thats the area. Heading Southbound on Woodall Rogers after you go under the KWP deck, if you want to to Southbound, to any of I-35E, I-30, or I-45, you pass over I-35 and take the cloverleaf ramp to get on SB I-35E.

Once you remove I-345, that will be your only freeway option heading South on Central. Thats it. Woodall Rogers to the cloverleaf ramp to all destinations Southbound.

Thats terrible, and not addressed with CityMap. Why is it like that? Because WR isnt designed to handle Southbound traffic from Central to I-45 (or to I-30). I-345 is.

Now if they want to completely rebuild that interchange and widen Lowest Stemmons (beyond whats happening now) then maybe you could make this work

User avatar
Tucy
Posts: 756
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 12:50

Re: I-345

Postby Tucy » 31 Dec 2019 10:27

Of the freeways circling downtown, it seems like the strongest candidate for removal would have been the WR.

User avatar
quixomniac
Posts: 131
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 21:24

Re: I-345

Postby quixomniac » 02 Jan 2020 20:38

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
Thats terrible, and not addressed with CityMap. Why is it like that? Because WR isnt designed to handle Southbound traffic from Central to I-45 (or to I-30). I-345 is.

Now if they want to completely rebuild that interchange and widen Lowest Stemmons (beyond whats happening now) then maybe you could make this work


It helps when people ask questions like that, since everytime I glance thru the study, it helps me understand it more. It looks like the study starts by identifying areas of interest, of which Lowest Stemmons is included.
study_area.PNG

Then it they isolate each study area based on the traffic numbers they have.
These estimates vary depending on how you are entering the loop.
So if youre studying 75 southbound, it almost makes sense to isolate Stemmons since so little of the traffic goes to it (5%, 8%, 20%)
75_south.PNG

Which they did, and their study shows no modifications to the clover loop.
lowest_stemmons.PNG


But its important to look at their assumptions,
Almost all of their diagrams admit that there will be increased traffic on the horseshoe interchange.
I highlighted in red in the CITY MAP slides. Woodall rogers is expected to have a decrease in volume due with certain Trinity PArkway modifications. Even in the map they show a tollway. So all the data, traffic percentages and assurances that traffic isnt hell from the Dmagazine article hinge on this Trinity parkway.
trinity_parkway.PNG

But this trinity parkway isnt happening anymore. So the study is flawed in my opinion.
Unless they increase traffic on Riverfront BLVd since their traffic study hinges on a parallel road to the horseshoe with ramps to woodall to ease congestion

Lastly, within the I345 scenarios for removal, they point out what we know (cesar chavez and good latimer) are expected to take a the brunt of the thru traffic going north/south. But also something I didnt know. Elm and commerce are expected to take on alot of traffic from I30 going into downtown too with traffic nearly DOUBLING.
removal.PNG

To me this is completely the opposite of what most people want to happen.
I345 is supposed to help deep ellum the most. More traffic on elm and commerce on top of good latimer doesnt align with the pedestrian oriented district most people want. I mean sure you could make it work, but it will slowly erode deep ellum's character and turn it into something else. Maybe we will like it, or most likely not.
Recently it feels like we are slowly moving towards closing off sections of deep ellum to thru traffic, with the uber geolock and the deep ellum festivals, adding more cars would make it more dangerous to walk or traffic coming to a complete stall.
Imagine trying to parallel park with 2x the amount of traffic on commerce? Or Elm Street.
Nightmare on elm street indeed.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Alex Rodriguez
Posts: 106
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 14:31

Re: I-345

Postby Alex Rodriguez » 03 Jan 2020 15:20

Good points. If you go back to the Pages 1-2 of this thread I get into a serious back and forth about the specifics of CityMap.

As you say, there are a bunch of presumptions in there to make this work, including Trinity Parkway, rebuilding the entire grid from the end of 45 all the way through Ceasar Chavez and through the re-purposed land where I-345 was. Also presume to re-do the Canyon (which is on the TxDot Letting schedule now, so it should happen at some point).

The Lowest Stemmons work that is referenced in CityMap is already underway, its to improve traffic between Woodall Rogers, I-35E and the Tollway, which is all North. Because Woodall is designed to be the connection between Central and Lower/Lowest Stemmons in the first place, they are adding collector lanes to keep you from having to merge onto Stemmons to get to the Tollway and vice versa.

All to say that none of that work fixes the cloverleaf ramp situation at WR & I-35E, or the single lane ramp going the other way. You basically have one lane of freeway going Southbound or coming from the South. It will be a nightmare.

And to reiterate, Citymap presumes that all the work you and I have listed here is completed, including the no longer viable Trinity Parkway.

So Citymap, while a nice document and helpful to understand the scenarios, is not gospel, and in fact no longer really relevant. You'd to have to rewrite the entire document with Trinity Parkway not being an option. And you'd have to include the redo of WR & I-35, and assume the Canyon is complete. Look at the dollars at that point.

If you want to do this right and not ruin downtown with traffic, either tunnel it, or trench the thing. Remove some of the exits. You are going to have to spend multiple billions regardless. You cannot tear down the freeway designed to connect Central with all points South, West and East, and call it good. You'd have to rebuild the entirety the freeway system South of KWP all the way through the Canyon and the I-45/I-30 interchange (except for most of the Horseshoe since its done).

So if it must be done, trench it, put a deck park on top of it, eliminate a couple of access points that aren't necessary and call it good. That's the best option period end of story

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 578
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: I-345

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 03 Jan 2020 20:42

^ Well said.

One clarification, though...

Because Woodall is designed to be the connection between Central and Lower/Lowest Stemmons in the first place, they are adding collector lanes to keep you from having to merge onto Stemmons to get to the Tollway and vice versa.


My understanding is that you'll no longer be able to get directly from 366 to the DNT. From https://www.dallasnews.com/news/transpo ... wn-dallas/

If you want to get to the tollway from Woodall Rodgers, you'll no longer have a connection via I-35E. You'll have to exit Woodall Rodgers, take city streets north and connect via McKinnon Street.


Which sounds to me like a fail. But the "tear it down" folks should love it! :-)

User avatar
quixomniac
Posts: 131
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 21:24

Re: I-345

Postby quixomniac » 04 Jan 2020 17:51

Alex Rodriguez wrote:Good points. If you go back to the Pages 1-2 of this thread I get into a serious back and forth about the specifics of CityMap. ...


No kidding, the back and forth between your ol' nemesis.
I generally scroll past people just arguing minutia, but
Given that you started this thread and we are only cycling back to your original arguments...
Thanks for having the patience to lead me back to your original points! :D

Somehow these flaws need to be made more evident to anyone arguing tear down exclusively.
Specially when someone pushes out a news article supported by a flawed study.
As politely as possible of course.

And I also agree with your previous point that the trenched option can be way more narrow than the CityMap suggests, its overbuilt in my opinion in the renderings/diagrams.
This would put it closer to the removal option, but the added benefit of optional deck parks.

The only loss would be parking, but in my opinion, given all the office that are looking to build in Deep Ellum.
They should institute some kind of policy of public parking (paid?) after a certain time of the day with all those garages. Mockingbird station has some mixed residential/public parking. I dont see why its unreasonable

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1834
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: I-345

Postby tamtagon » 04 Jan 2020 20:00

tamtagon wrote:I like having the physical separation between these neighborhoods. That separation is the cornerstone allowing the unique characteristics of Deep Ellum come into being -- since the beginning, too. Having elevated thru-traffic lanes is fine by me, so long as the two street grids are allowed to connect seamlessly for pedestrians.


I still like keeping elevated thru lanes and the physical separation they make. Entrance and exit ramps should be strategic to efficient street grid traffic.

User avatar
quixomniac
Posts: 131
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 21:24

Re: I-345 Teardown

Postby quixomniac » 06 Jan 2020 23:29

Alex Rodriguez wrote:Against (For Trench/Tunnel)

It looks like only the original person who started the topic can make a poll
Would be helpful to gauge the forums POV's

From FAQ link in top left corner
How do I create a poll?
When posting a new topic or editing the first post of a topic, click the “Poll creation” tab below the main posting form; if you cannot see this, you do not have appropriate permissions to create polls. Enter a title and at least two options in the appropriate fields, making sure each option is on a separate line in the textarea. You can also set the number of options users may select during voting under “Options per user”, a time limit in days for the poll (0 for infinite duration) and lastly the option to allow users to amend their votes.

Tnexster
Posts: 2657
Joined: 22 Oct 2016 16:33
Location: Dallas

Re: I-345

Postby Tnexster » 09 Jan 2020 21:07

tamtagon wrote:
tamtagon wrote:I like having the physical separation between these neighborhoods. That separation is the cornerstone allowing the unique characteristics of Deep Ellum come into being -- since the beginning, too. Having elevated thru-traffic lanes is fine by me, so long as the two street grids are allowed to connect seamlessly for pedestrians.


I still like keeping elevated thru lanes and the physical separation they make. Entrance and exit ramps should be strategic to efficient street grid traffic.


Tend to agree, there is a very distinct feeling you get when crossing under 345 going into DE.

User avatar
dch526
Posts: 74
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 09:12

Re: I-345

Postby dch526 » 10 Jan 2020 09:04

Tnexster wrote:
tamtagon wrote:
tamtagon wrote:I like having the physical separation between these neighborhoods. That separation is the cornerstone allowing the unique characteristics of Deep Ellum come into being -- since the beginning, too. Having elevated thru-traffic lanes is fine by me, so long as the two street grids are allowed to connect seamlessly for pedestrians.


I still like keeping elevated thru lanes and the physical separation they make. Entrance and exit ramps should be strategic to efficient street grid traffic.


Tend to agree, there is a very distinct feeling you get when crossing under 345 going into DE.


The more I think about it, I keep thinking leave and repair option is the best option IF the connection between downtown & deep ellum is more cohesive (nice wide sidewalk, build out of the proposed park, etc)

User avatar
TNWE
Posts: 282
Joined: 03 May 2017 09:42

Re: I-345

Postby TNWE » 10 Jan 2020 17:53

I45Tex wrote:TNWE, I think that that's all well-spoken and well thought-out.
I mostly haven't participated in this debate, but isn't it also correct to say this?
The level of pent-up pre-leasing demand to finance Plaza-of-the-Americas-scale monsterpieces, like Spire wants to build, is not the same as -- to the point that it really means nothing about -- the level of pent-up demand for the same square footage of incremental (where we find what's in demand by financing and leasing it in a process of thousand little pieces with different owners), flexible, dense downtown traditional neighborhood development?


Even on a smaller scale, there's a lot of available space scattered about DT and Deep Ellum. There are still big chunks of high rise office space available with all the corporate relocations to Uptown or Las Colinas/Cypress Waters, not to mention street-level retail vacancies. On top of that, I count at least a dozen "pay and display" parking lots a stone's throw away from a downtown DART Station, half of which are 50k sq ft (the same size as the AMLI Fountain Place Lot, so enough room for a decent sized structure). If there was any pent-up demand at all, those parcels would have been turned into, at minimum, 200-ish midrise apartments generating $250k+ in monthly rent, not a piddling $45k/month in parking revenue.

The existence of I-345 is simply not hindering development in downtown Dallas.

User avatar
mhainli
Posts: 35
Joined: 02 Mar 2017 17:56

Re: I-345

Postby mhainli » 10 Jan 2020 22:17

Trench 345 with thru lanes only in the trench, local and DT access at surface, deck park possibilities in several locations.. seems like the only viable option

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 1591
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: I-345

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 11 Jan 2020 00:01

mhainli wrote:Trench 345 with thru lanes only in the trench, local and DT access at surface, deck park possibilities in several locations.. seems like the only viable option

I'd rather trench 30 and 35

DPatel304
Posts: 1837
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49
Location: Turtle Creek

Re: I-345

Postby DPatel304 » 11 Jan 2020 11:35

Is the D2 line still possible if we trench I-345? I thought D2 would be partially underground when passing under I-345.

User avatar
eburress
Posts: 751
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:13

Re: I-345

Postby eburress » 11 Jan 2020 12:27

DPatel304 wrote:Is the D2 line still possible if we trench I-345? I thought D2 would be partially underground when passing under I-345.


It is, at least conceptually. One of the renderings of a trenched I-345 showed a submerged D2 passing above the road surface (i.e., the I-345 roadway would be deeper than D2 at their point of intersection).

DPatel304
Posts: 1837
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49
Location: Turtle Creek

Re: I-345

Postby DPatel304 » 11 Jan 2020 22:10

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that!

Given how costly trenching it would be, I just didn't think it would become a reality. I'm hoping now that Uber is coming to Deep Ellum and we're seeing more development in the area, trenching now becomes more likely. If there is less of a barrier between Deep Ellum and Downtown, we could see this development start to spill over into the East Quarter pretty quickly, I would imagine.

Tnexster
Posts: 2657
Joined: 22 Oct 2016 16:33
Location: Dallas

Re: I-345

Postby Tnexster » 13 Jan 2020 08:55

DPatel304 wrote:Given how costly trenching it would be, I just didn't think it would become a reality. I'm hoping now that Uber is coming to Deep Ellum and we're seeing more development in the area, trenching now becomes more likely. If there is less of a barrier between Deep Ellum and Downtown, we could see this development start to spill over into the East Quarter pretty quickly, I would imagine.


Start? Isn't there already development happening in East Quarter? In fact aren't there cranes on both sides of 345 building towers that aren't supposed to be there because 345 is such a barrier to development? We have heard this myth about how awful 345 is for years and yet we see all kinds of development popping up on both sides and in many cases right up next to it. Something that was never supposed to happen.

DPatel304
Posts: 1837
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49
Location: Turtle Creek

Re: I-345

Postby DPatel304 » 13 Jan 2020 09:18

You're right, development is booming on both sides. I guess what I was trying to say is that while I-345 is not detrimental to the area, having it trenched would definitely make the area more attractive and would likely increase the amount of development on both sides.

Not that that's really necessary, as both sides will be super successful in the near future regardless of what happens to I-345 (actually, Deep Ellum is already super successful), but things would still be better with less of a barrier.

I don't think anyone is trying to say that because of I-345, development will NEVER occur in the immediate area, I just think people (like myself) think it does still hinder the area from what it potentially could be. I feel the same way about Woodall Rogers as well. Klyde Warren really helped reduce the 'barrier' and connect Uptown/Downtown together. I do believe that even without Klyde Warren, development still would have occurred here, but it would have taken longer and the end result may not have been as high quality.

Tnexster
Posts: 2657
Joined: 22 Oct 2016 16:33
Location: Dallas

Re: I-345

Postby Tnexster » 13 Jan 2020 16:07

KWP definitely helped an area already doing well do even better. Since the area in and around 345 is clearly booming and not being hurt by the elevated freeway I would think we could focus on something else that clearly needs an improved connection like Fair Park or decking over I-30 to improve the connection to the Cedars. Since it takes an eternity to make these things happen and the Dallas end terminal building for HSR won't begin construction until long after the line has started construction we have some time to help push that one along. I-30 will start construction and does provide an opportunity.

Chicago has thrived with the El for 128 years, a far uglier, longer and older elevated structure than this short little section of I-345.

DPatel304
Posts: 1837
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49
Location: Turtle Creek

Re: I-345

Postby DPatel304 » 13 Jan 2020 17:11

Fair point. So basically you're saying the ROI would be higher focusing on another area, and I would completely agree with that.

I am 100% on board with decking I-30 as opposed to decking/tearing down I-345. I think there is a tremendous upside to be had by connecting the southern part of the CBD to the Cedars.

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 1591
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: I-345

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 13 Jan 2020 18:06

"Trenching" 345 doesn't free up real estate though. I doubt anything but 1 story buildings would be allowed above a cut and cover "trench" rather do Riverfront and 35 than i345

User avatar
muncien
Posts: 1062
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 08:46
Location: Cypress Waters

Re: I-345

Postby muncien » 14 Jan 2020 09:13

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:"Trenching" 345 doesn't free up real estate though. I doubt anything but 1 story buildings would be allowed above a cut and cover "trench" rather do Riverfront and 35 than i345


Trenching of the main lanes themselves won't produce a lot of Real Estate, but by making them strictly passthrough, you get to eliminate excessive waste of ramps connected to the existing elevated lanes.
The section from I-30 up to Pacific can have it's footprint cut in half, if not more.
The section from Pacific up to Ross can be run UNDER the existing median 'ramp' area and probably get a 40% reduction in footprint. In that sense, it's not about building on the land above the decking, but just freeing up land adjacent.
Keeping the elevated section, but trimming back the ramps will only get you some of that savings for the bottom section.
But I agree with others that I30 and I35 are far more detrimental to their respective neighborhoods than I345 is in its current form.
"He doesn't know how to use the three seashells..."

DPatel304
Posts: 1837
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49
Location: Turtle Creek

Re: I-345

Postby DPatel304 » 17 Jan 2020 12:13

Let's say we keep it as an overpass, but rebuild/re-design it. Is it possible to create 'flexible lanes' and make the entire thing skinnier?

What I mean by that is that instead of having X number of lanes always going north and X number always going south, you have a certain number of lanes that can be adjusted depending on traffic. I'd imagine this is difficult to pull off, which is why we don't really see it that often, but this is such a short stretch of highway that I thought it might be more feasible here.

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 1591
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: I-345

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 17 Jan 2020 13:48

They could double deck the lanes. One on top the others. I'd be okay if they just removed all the on/off ramps. That's the biggest impediment imo.

User avatar
Cbdallas
Posts: 473
Joined: 29 Nov 2016 16:42

Re: I-345

Postby Cbdallas » 17 Jan 2020 14:17

Perfect place for Elon Musk to create one of his tunnels and charge a toll to use.

DPatel304
Posts: 1837
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49
Location: Turtle Creek

Re: I-345

Postby DPatel304 » 17 Jan 2020 14:37

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:They could double deck the lanes. One on top the others. I'd be okay if they just removed all the on/off ramps. That's the biggest impediment imo.


Yeah, I'm okay with it staying if it could just be skinnied up and re-worked to be as mininmally obtrusive as possible.

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 578
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: I-345

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 17 Jan 2020 19:21

I have to admit I don't understand why people who so much want downtown to grow want to make it harder to get in and out by removing access.

Here is something I posted to another thread in response to someone wanting to remove the Live Oak exit ramp, but it's relevant here:

Unless you're coming from I-35 or the DNT via Spur 366. Then you're screwed. It's stupid to have to exit at Olive, loop around to the service road and then drive through downtown if you want to get to East Quarter, Deep Ellum or East Dallas.

What they need to do is:

- Cut-off access to that exit ramp from southbound I-345, making it accessible only from 366. This will improve traffic flow on the highway by reducing weaving traffic.

- Remove the curve so that the ramp intersects Live Oak at a right angle. Add a traffic signal so the 366 traffic can turn left to East Dallas, Deep Ellum, etc... This lets them remove the restriction on left turns onto Pearl, so you improve access the East Quarter and Farmers Market areas. The small amount of excess land can then be sold to the adjoining property owner, and lets them have access to the property from the Live Oak side.

- Make the second from inside lane of Southbound 75 so traffic can exit to Good-Latimer or continue onto 345. This will improve traffic flow by reducing idiots sitting in the exit-only lane until the last second, then coming to a stop when they can't merge. It will also make it easier to exit to G-L from the Haskell entrance ramp. This change would just require some paint. The pavement already exists.

User avatar
jsoto3
Posts: 83
Joined: 16 Jan 2017 22:59

Re: I-345

Postby jsoto3 » 18 Jan 2020 00:34

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:"Trenching" 345 doesn't free up real estate though. I doubt anything but 1 story buildings would be allowed above a cut and cover "trench" rather do Riverfront and 35 than i345

Although it is very difficult to pull off economically and politically (with multiple agencies involved), it is technically feasible to build very large multi-story developments (including towers) in the air rights above trenched highways. Have a look at what has already been built above the Mass Turnpike (I-90) and commuter rail lines between Back Bay and South End in Boston (Prudential Center mall, Copley Place mall, Hynes Convention Center), creating a tunnel 3,000 feet long. Within the last 10 years there have been several mixed-use towers proposed for the remaining highway/railway air rights parcels to the east and west of the existing developments, but none yet completed and some cancelled.

Bing Map: https://binged.it/2v3paHr
https://www.goodyclancy.com/projects/a- ... ir-rights/
https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/201 ... ir-rights/
https://boston.curbed.com/maps/massachu ... -buildings
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/20 ... 021119.pdf
https://archboston.com/community/thread ... 1989.1519/
https://www.bisnow.com/boston/news/cons ... efit-96609
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news ... break.html
https://www.bisnow.com/boston/news/mixe ... cts-100430
https://boston.curbed.com/boston-develo ... ent-boston

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 578
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: I-345

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 18 Jan 2020 17:02

The Atlanta Financial Center in Buckhead straddles a highway and MARTA rail line.

Image

Image

User avatar
mhainli
Posts: 35
Joined: 02 Mar 2017 17:56

Re: I-345

Postby mhainli » 19 Jan 2020 21:27

My original post suggesting “trenching” I345 (like US 75 to the north, not tunneling!) being the only viable option in a future rebuild drew some good conversation. To clear things up trenching this highway doesn’t preclude trenching I30 (realistic) or I35 (unrealistic). I30 probably would be on the bottom level of a future interchange rebuild where it crosses I345. In addition, the idea circulating that I345 could be removed with traffic put on a boulevard and other local streets is not only politically not going to happen but we also wouldn’t want that to happen. The resulting traffic clogged local streets would be a
bigger impediment to pedestrians and traffic movement to and from DT and DE than the current elevated I345.

User avatar
THRILLHO
Posts: 89
Joined: 26 Oct 2016 21:20

Re: I-345

Postby THRILLHO » 20 Jan 2020 12:00

Tucy wrote:Of the freeways circling downtown, it seems like the strongest candidate for removal would have been the WR.

Would love to see that tunnel filled with dirt and have Klyde Warren extended, gently sloping down that entire distance and ending just a short hop and a skip away from the trinity.

Tnexster
Posts: 2657
Joined: 22 Oct 2016 16:33
Location: Dallas

Re: I-345

Postby Tnexster » 29 May 2020 13:42

Southern Dallas residents need I-345. Why is a wealthy consortium trying to tear it down?

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/edit ... r-it-down/

User avatar
quixomniac
Posts: 131
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 21:24

Re: I-345

Postby quixomniac » 29 May 2020 19:47

Tnexster wrote:Southern Dallas residents need I-345. Why is a wealthy consortium trying to tear it down?

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/edit ... r-it-down/


Didnt know that Dmagazine CEO was the one who founded the group pushing to tear down I345. Seems like an obvious conflict of interest. Specially given that they seem to be the ones publishing the most articles about I345. For another twist, it seems to be to their benefit that Carpenter park is not built at all. More land to develop when I345 is torn down.

User avatar
TNWE
Posts: 282
Joined: 03 May 2017 09:42

Re: I-345

Postby TNWE » 01 Jun 2020 10:03

quixomniac wrote:
Tnexster wrote:Southern Dallas residents need I-345. Why is a wealthy consortium trying to tear it down?

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/edit ... r-it-down/


Didnt know that Dmagazine CEO was the one who founded the group pushing to tear down I345. Seems like an obvious conflict of interest. Specially given that they seem to be the ones publishing the most articles about I345. For another twist, it seems to be to their benefit that Carpenter park is not built at all. More land to develop when I345 is torn down.


D magazine needs to mind its place - its purpose is to be waiting room drivel for people to read while waiting for their doctor's appointment, not be a vehicle for the worst sort of privileged, "progressive" white guys to play SimCity with other people's money. They actually published a rebuttal (https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... -its-face/) that's basically an extended, hysterical, "doth protest too much" rant that shows just how correct the DMN piece was.

Given how tightly entangled that whole DMag/CND circle is with Kingston and Griggs, I'd say the citizens of Dallas dodged a bullet by making sure those two got voted out. Who knows what essential city services they'd be holding hostage right now in order to get their way on 345...

User avatar
Tucy
Posts: 756
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 12:50

Re: I-345

Postby Tucy » 01 Jun 2020 11:36

TNWE wrote:
quixomniac wrote:
Tnexster wrote:Southern Dallas residents need I-345. Why is a wealthy consortium trying to tear it down?

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/edit ... r-it-down/


Didnt know that Dmagazine CEO was the one who founded the group pushing to tear down I345. Seems like an obvious conflict of interest. Specially given that they seem to be the ones publishing the most articles about I345. For another twist, it seems to be to their benefit that Carpenter park is not built at all. More land to develop when I345 is torn down.


D magazine needs to mind its place - its purpose is to be waiting room drivel for people to read while waiting for their doctor's appointment, not be a vehicle for the worst sort of privileged, "progressive" white guys to play SimCity with other people's money. They actually published a rebuttal (https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... -its-face/) that's basically an extended, hysterical, "doth protest too much" rant that shows just how correct the DMN piece was.

Given how tightly entangled that whole DMag/CND circle is with Kingston and Griggs, I'd say the citizens of Dallas dodged a bullet by making sure those two got voted out. Who knows what essential city services they'd be holding hostage right now in order to get their way on 345...


Wow. That article was remarkably dishonest and childish. D Magazine should be ashamed.

cowboyeagle05
Posts: 2434
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 08:45
Location: Dallas

Re: I-345

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 01 Jun 2020 11:41

D magazine has always had a slant they are a publication that is allowed to btw. I don't think it a conflict of interest because they have clearly stated many of their articles that they are a part of the founding members of the group looking to tear down I-345. D Magazine isn't a news organization like the Dallas Morning News or WFAA they have always written opinionated pieces on any number of city projects. They take pride in the news they cover but they know what they are and aren't. D Magazine can have an opinion and you can agree with it or not.

Last I checked the reason some were against the Carpenter Park plan was not that they want the land for development but because its a park designed around a highway and any park in this area should focus on a future without the highway. I still find a Carpenter Park and Harwood Park having too many large parks close to each other without much density to argue for it. Carpenter exists because its land developers wouldn't use except for maybe a gas station otherwise. It was a dump of a park before because of the highway with some pricey art piece stuck into it to try to force validity for its existence. The future plan is much better if the highway stays.
“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell”

User avatar
Tucy
Posts: 756
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 12:50

Re: I-345

Postby Tucy » 01 Jun 2020 13:32

cowboyeagle05 wrote:D magazine has always had a slant they are a publication that is allowed to btw. I don't think it a conflict of interest because they have clearly stated many of their articles that they are a part of the founding members of the group looking to tear down I-345. D Magazine isn't a news organization like the Dallas Morning News or WFAA they have always written opinionated pieces on any number of city projects. They take pride in the news they cover but they know what they are and aren't. D Magazine can have an opinion and you can agree with it or not.


Of course they are entitled to their opinion (as are WFAA and DMN equally entitled to have their opinions), but they are not entitled to make up their own "facts".

D Magazine tells us that the Citymap study says that if we do nothing with I-345, congestion increases by 272,500 hours but that if we tear down I-345 congestion magically only increases 163,000 hours. As they petulantly tell us, perhaps they should "have a look" at the study. Their reporting on it is either ignorant or dishonest, but it's definitely false.

First, the numbers shown are not "additional" delay, they are total delay (daily). (Current total delay, as clearly shown on the page to which D links, is 95,100. The "additional" delay is the delta between 272,500 and 95,100.) More importantly, the 272,500 delay number is if we make no improvements to the entire downtown area freeway system. The 163,800 hours of delay is not obtained by just removing I-345 as D suggests, but by removing I-345 and completing Southern Gateway, Lowest Stemmons, Trinity Parkway 4 Lane and widening of I-30. Again in D's words, how could the editorial writer not mention that the delay analysis for the I-345 removal scenario requires the construction of the Trinity Parkway and all the other projects"?

An honest presentation would compare the projected delays of the three I-345 scenarios (modify, remove, and below grade), to-wit:

Modify 164,700 hours of delay
Remove 163,800 hours
Below Grade 163,100 hours

User avatar
quixomniac
Posts: 131
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 21:24

Re: I-345

Postby quixomniac » 01 Jun 2020 16:34

Tucy wrote:D Magazine tells us that the Citymap study says that if we do nothing with I-345, congestion increases by 272,500 hours but that if we tear down I-345 congestion magically only increases 163,000 hours. As they petulantly tell us, perhaps they should "have a look" at the study. Their reporting on it is either ignorant or dishonest, but it's definitely false.

....Again in D's words, how could the editorial writer not mention that the delay analysis for the I-345 removal scenario requires the construction of the Trinity Parkway and all the other projects"?



THIS. This is a point that needs to be made anytime someone cites the CityMAP study. Flood all the comment sections with it. It is no longer relevant. We are still waiting on an updated study from TxDOT

User avatar
maconahey
Posts: 412
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 13:07

Re: I-345

Postby maconahey » 20 Aug 2020 21:39

Or just build around I-345 kinda like the Gate Tower Building in Japan :lol: :lol:

Image

Image

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 1591
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: I-345

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 20 Aug 2020 22:51

Haha this so grotesque it actually is amusing to look at lol


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests

Login