Page 4 of 4

Re: I-345

Posted: 21 Mar 2019 13:40
by dallaz
Growing movement to remove elevated interstate in downtown Dallas


http://www.fox4news.com/news/growing-mo ... own-dallas

Re: I-345

Posted: 21 Mar 2019 14:25
by Tucy
dallaz wrote:Growing movement to remove elevated interstate in downtown Dallas


http://www.fox4news.com/news/growing-mo ... own-dallas


It is (theoretically) possible that a good case can be made that Dallas would be better off without I-345, but that case cannot be made by dishonest comparisons such as, for example, claiming that the Park East Freeway in Milwaukee was similar to Dallas' I-345 (as they did in the linked article). The only thing they had in common was that they were (are) both elevated structures.

The Park East carried only 54,000 or fewer cars per day and was just a spur less than a mile long (essentially a long exit/entrance ramp). It's only purpose was to carry traffic into and out of downtown Milwaukee. It made a great deal of sense to replace it with a boulevard. That volume of traffic (all local) could be handled as well, perhaps even better, by a boulevard and grid.

I-345, in contrast, carries 200,000+ cars per day, and is a through-freeway.

Re: I-345

Posted: 21 Mar 2019 18:30
by Hannibal Lecter
^ Bingo. It was just like the Embarcadero: a glorified exit ramp. Also not mentioned is that Milwaukee has barely a half million people -- and decreasing.

Re: I-345

Posted: 21 Mar 2019 22:50
by DPatel304
As much as I hate highways cutting through our Downtown, it's hard for me to make an argument to tear down I-345. The benefit of tearing down the highway is you connect Downtown and Deep Ellum and also free up land that we can develop on, but, as of today, we still have a ton of empty land in the CBD that can be re-developed without tearing down any highways.

If demand to build in Downtown was extremely high and we were running out of space, I'd be more inclined to tear down the highway, but I think we are getting a little ahead of ourselves.

My stance is that we should keep the highway for the forseeable future, perhaps we can re-design it so it's less of an obstruction, and then, once the city has matured a bit more and self driving cars are more mainstream, we can revisit this issue.

Re: I-345

Posted: 22 Mar 2019 09:41
by jetnd87
The study that TX-DOT commissioned said that average drive times would only be increased by 3-5 minutes. You're not removing pathways but tearing down the highway. A working plan would be to replace it with two sizable, street-level boulevards. Plus you have the other streets (i.e. the grid) that can handle quite a bit of capacity.

You have to start somewhere. We have to make greater downtown more cohesive and desirable for businesses and residents to locate en masse. Then hopefully you can have a decent chunk of these jobs land in the core vs. the far flung suburbs, reducing drive times and limiting or (at times) eradicating the need for a car which often takes up half of lower wage worker's salaries. What we have now is an abomination. Highways were never meant to cut through a city, even Eisenhower said as much. 3-5 minutes extra drive time for a big step in a more sustainable direction - not to mention billions of economic value unlocked (see same TX-DOT study) - seems a pretty fair trade.

Re: I-345

Posted: 22 Mar 2019 10:25
by muncien
Can we start with those that are truly impassable first, such as I35 (trench and cover?) and I 30 (narrow & cover)? At least you can walk under I345. Once we take care of the worst offenders, maybe then we should move on to I345 (narrowing can happen sooner though).

Re: I-345

Posted: 23 Mar 2019 11:33
by Tnexster
DPatel304 wrote:As much as I hate highways cutting through our Downtown, it's hard for me to make an argument to tear down I-345. The benefit of tearing down the highway is you connect Downtown and Deep Ellum and also free up land that we can develop on, but, as of today, we still have a ton of empty land in the CBD that can be re-developed without tearing down any highways.

If demand to build in Downtown was extremely high and we were running out of space, I'd be more inclined to tear down the highway, but I think we are getting a little ahead of ourselves.

My stance is that we should keep the highway for the forseeable future, perhaps we can re-design it so it's less of an obstruction, and then, once the city has matured a bit more and self driving cars are more mainstream, we can revisit this issue.


While I like the concept I don't see it happening, especially since TxDOT seems committed to keeping 345 in place for the time being, and as long as it's there the traffic counts will likely increase making it even more unlikely that they will take it down. Meanwhile high rises are going up all along that stretch. I think we are stuck with it.

Re: I-345

Posted: 03 May 2019 15:16
by mcrdal15
Tnexster wrote:
DPatel304 wrote:As much as I hate highways cutting through our Downtown, it's hard for me to make an argument to tear down I-345. The benefit of tearing down the highway is you connect Downtown and Deep Ellum and also free up land that we can develop on, but, as of today, we still have a ton of empty land in the CBD that can be re-developed without tearing down any highways.

If demand to build in Downtown was extremely high and we were running out of space, I'd be more inclined to tear down the highway, but I think we are getting a little ahead of ourselves.

My stance is that we should keep the highway for the forseeable future, perhaps we can re-design it so it's less of an obstruction, and then, once the city has matured a bit more and self driving cars are more mainstream, we can revisit this issue.


While I like the concept I don't see it happening, especially since TxDOT seems committed to keeping 345 in place for the time being, and as long as it's there the traffic counts will likely increase making it even more unlikely that they will take it down. Meanwhile high rises are going up all along that stretch. I think we are stuck with it.


It's near the end of its life span, so a choice will need be made sooner rather than later (either completely fixing it or removing it). Also, the high rises being built near it are an excellent reason to tear it down. The growth in and around Deep Ellum will bring in a lot of walkable amenities, thus reducing the need for area residents to have to hop in their cars.

Re: I-345

Posted: 04 Jun 2019 17:55
by eburress
In case anyone hasn't yet seen this from last week's mayoral debate:

https://youtu.be/vcDbqLLGs3Y


And the corresponding D Magazine article:

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... ust-watch/

Re: I-345

Posted: 26 Jun 2019 12:20
by longhorn
So how does one go from the fast growing north Dallas area to I-45 bound for Houston if there is no I-345?

Re: I-345

Posted: 26 Jun 2019 12:52
by dfwcre8tive
longhorn wrote:So how does one go from the fast growing north Dallas area to I-45 bound for Houston if there is no I-345?


IH-635/IH-20?

Re: I-345

Posted: 26 Jun 2019 13:13
by texasstar
longhorn wrote:So how does one go from the fast growing north Dallas area to I-45 bound for Houston if there is no I-345?


High-speed rail.

Re: I-345

Posted: 26 Jun 2019 13:14
by dch526
longhorn wrote:So how does one go from the fast growing north Dallas area to I-45 bound for Houston if there is no I-345?


Per google maps, it is currently an additional 4 minutes of travel time to take 75/635/20 to 45 instead of taking 75/345/45
6.8 miles further driving distance

Re: I-345

Posted: 26 Jun 2019 13:31
by longhorn
So overload 635?

Re: I-345

Posted: 26 Jun 2019 13:32
by longhorn
texasstar wrote:
longhorn wrote:So how does one go from the fast growing north Dallas area to I-45 bound for Houston if there is no I-345?


High-speed rail.


Still have to get downtown.

Re: I-345

Posted: 26 Jun 2019 13:56
by art_suckz
This adds a few minutes.. or gets you to the high-speed rail.

Screen Shot 2019-06-26 at 1.54.39 PM.png

Re: I-345

Posted: 26 Jun 2019 14:07
by DPatel304
longhorn wrote:So overload 635?


That will eventually happen anyway, which is why I support decisions that focus on making Dallas more urban, more public transit friendly, and more walkable to try and get cars off the streets long term.

With that said, I'm still not exactly sold on this I-345 removal project, so don't take this as me being in support of it.

Re: I-345

Posted: 26 Jun 2019 14:22
by dch526
longhorn wrote:So overload 635?


Divert pass-through traffic to 635, yes.

This section of 635 is about to undergo reconstruction and widening as well. The link past Highway 80 currently has the capacity to handle the influx.

Sometime in the future, PGBT will extend to IH-20 and can handle handle some flow as well. (No current timeline)

Re: I-345

Posted: 26 Jun 2019 15:10
by Tivo_Kenevil
longhorn wrote:
texasstar wrote:
longhorn wrote:So how does one go from the fast growing north Dallas area to I-45 bound for Houston if there is no I-345?


High-speed rail.


Still have to get downtown.


Really? 75,30, 35 DNT all take you downtown. I345 is nothing more than road that circumvents downtown.

Re: I-345

Posted: 26 Jun 2019 16:17
by MC_ScattCat
635 Will take 4 to 5 years to complete. I do know also they will be closing the HOV lanes & reducing the # of lanes to 4 each way from 5 between Greenville Ave. & Galloway Ave. during construction. All I can say is thank goodness they decided not to build a depressed section for the HOV lanes.

Re: I-345

Posted: 26 Jun 2019 19:36
by quixomniac
That 635 will handle reverted traffic previously on I-345 is a HUGE assumption.
635 is being expanded for existing traffic, and like a self fullfilling prophecy, it will eventually not be enough.
Adding additional traffic that would have previously not even been there is ridiculous.

Burying i345 is more reasonable.
While everyone is thinking about how to get to houston...
What about people who live in the South Dallas who want to go North?
What about seagoville, pleasant grove and other people who use that highway?

Re: I-345

Posted: 27 Jun 2019 08:10
by Hannibal Lecter
quixomniac wrote:That 635 will handle reverted traffic previously on I-345 is a HUGE assumption.
635 is being expanded for existing traffic, and like a self fullfilling prophecy, it will eventually not be enough.
Adding additional traffic that would have previously not even been there is ridiculous.

Burying i345 is more reasonable.
While everyone is thinking about how to get to houston...
What about people who live in the South Dallas who want to go North?
What about seagoville, pleasant grove and other people who use that highway?


Once thing I've slowly learned is that most (not all) of the people on this forum don't give a damn about the people who already live here. They're really little different than the "urban planners" of the 50's and 60's that they decry. To them Dallas is just another version of SimCity, not real people in real homes that have to get to real jobs and real stores.

Re: I-345

Posted: 27 Jun 2019 12:44
by dch526
quixomniac wrote:That 635 will handle reverted traffic previously on I-345 is a HUGE assumption.
635 is being expanded for existing traffic, and like a self fullfilling prophecy, it will eventually not be enough.
Adding additional traffic that would have previously not even been there is ridiculous.

Burying i345 is more reasonable.
While everyone is thinking about how to get to houston...
What about people who live in the South Dallas who want to go North?
What about seagoville, pleasant grove and other people who use that highway?


It's not that 635 would handle all but it would handle some. 160,000 cars/day would not all of a sudden use 635 in place of 345. Also, since this was brought up around people from North Dallas/Collin Co travelling to Houston, how often will these trips begin at rush hour? 7-9am and 4pm-6:30pm are pretty rough on 635 but 9am-4pm and 6:30pm-7am aren't nearly as bad and most likely these trips to Houston will fit on those ranges more often than not.

As for people in Seagoville/Pleasant Grove/surrounding areas, they have pretty easy access to 635 to head north and bypass downtown and would be surprised if they were not doing it today. If they are heading to areas around Northwest Highway then they can use Loop 12 if they don't already use it today. Other areas of South Dallas that these options don't quite fit or are not using other highways/routes, can use the internal street grid as well as the whatever 345 turns into.

Also, I agree with you, if there is a feasible way to just bury 345 then that would be my number 1 choice (maybe there is but so far it appears to be much less likely than tearing down to boulevard or just leave as is).

For some people, just because you've lived in an area for 10/20/30+ years doesn't mean your opinion matters any more than someone who's just moved to the area or have been there for a year or two who want to spend the next 10/20/30+ years in the area. These two groups really need to find some even ground because the "I don't want anything to change" group and the "I want to change everything" group arguments are really not helpful to the discussion.

Re: I-345

Posted: 27 Jun 2019 14:38
by Tivo_Kenevil
Hannibal Lecter wrote: To them Dallas is just another version of SimCity, not real people in real homes that have to get to real jobs and real stores.

Nobody even plays Sims city anymore Hannibal. It's all about Cities Skylines..

Re: I-345

Posted: 27 Jun 2019 22:22
by quixomniac
dch526 wrote:
quixomniac wrote:That 635 will handle reverted traffic previously on I-345 is a HUGE assumption.
635 is being expanded for existing traffic, and like a self fullfilling prophecy, it will eventually not be enough.
Adding additional traffic that would have previously not even been there is ridiculous.

Burying i345 is more reasonable.
While everyone is thinking about how to get to houston...
What about people who live in the South Dallas who want to go North?
What about seagoville, pleasant grove and other people who use that highway?


It's not that 635 would handle all but it would handle some. 160,000 cars/day would not all of a sudden use 635 in place of 345. Also, since this was brought up around people from North Dallas/Collin Co travelling to Houston, how often will these trips begin at rush hour? 7-9am and 4pm-6:30pm are pretty rough on 635 but 9am-4pm and 6:30pm-7am aren't nearly as bad and most likely these trips to Houston will fit on those ranges more often than not.

As for people in Seagoville/Pleasant Grove/surrounding areas, they have pretty easy access to 635 to head north and bypass downtown and would be surprised if they were not doing it today. If they are heading to areas around Northwest Highway then they can use Loop 12 if they don't already use it today. Other areas of South Dallas that these options don't quite fit or are not using other highways/routes, can use the internal street grid as well as the whatever 345 turns into.

Also, I agree with you, if there is a feasible way to just bury 345 then that would be my number 1 choice (maybe there is but so far it appears to be much less likely than tearing down to boulevard or just leave as is).

For some people, just because you've lived in an area for 10/20/30+ years doesn't mean your opinion matters any more than someone who's just moved to the area or have been there for a year or two who want to spend the next 10/20/30+ years in the area. These two groups really need to find some even ground because the "I don't want anything to change" group and the "I want to change everything" group arguments are really not helpful to the discussion.


Thank you for your input.
That is correct, pleasant grove has the option of 635, but that will only help for a percentage of trips.
I have seen the studies for making I345 into street level traffic, but i still think they vastly underestimate. Sprawl has little to go northward, and will hopefully begin southward and eastward further adding traffic.
Great infrastructure precedes growth. It needs to be in place for growth to happen.
The northern suburbs would have never happened it it werent for the tollway or 75.

To me this discussion should be either tear it down and bury it, or learn to live with it.
Adding soccer fields, parks, PARKING would be a better use of land under i345 in the short term.
Use creative LED lighting to encourage passing under the bridge. The archs between victory park and westend are a good example of how to get people to walk.

Halfway doing things because of money or compromise only end up costing more in the long term.

Re: I-345

Posted: 28 Jun 2019 03:50
by itsjrd1964
art_suckz wrote:This adds a few minutes.. or gets you to the high-speed rail.

Screen Shot 2019-06-26 at 1.54.39 PM.png


Concentrating all the in-town freeway traffic on the Mixmaster will cause more of a choke-point even if there are no accidents (which is unrealistic). In the case of an accident in the area along one part of the current setup, traffic can be alerted to re-route around the other side of downtown to avoid it. If one side (like I-345) is not there, there is no freeway outlet/detour for the backup that will form after an accident.

If I-45 is extended north of Dallas, which could happen considering improvements to the north, and desire for places like Sherman to have an interstate (which officials from there have openly expressed previously), a smooth connection would be ideal (even necessary) for those who want to follow it on their way. Making I-45 traffic go to the Mixmaster first when they wouldn't have to would be like making those on I-35E come over to I-345 first to travel through the CBD area. A bit inefficient, and unnecessary.

Re: I-345

Posted: 28 Jun 2019 08:55
by muncien
I never quite understand the obsession with I345. Should it eventually be torn down and have some limited access lanes buried? Sure, but of the entire loop around the CBD, it is one of the least obstructive. I35E to the West and I30 to the south are absolutely dreadful. Heck, even sections of Woodall not covered by KWP are worse than I345 when it comes to crossing.
That said, some super cheap short term fixes could certainly improve things without getting into the 'tear it down' or 'keep it as it is' extremes that get us nowhere.
1. Remove the southbound Live Oak exit... like now. This exit is totally redundant and unnecessary. Live Oak doesn't even make it to Pacific anymore. It is almost useless with the previous exit serving the exact same functional purpose.
2. Put some flip'n sidewalks in! This isn't even an I345 issue... This is a City of Dallas issue. There is absolutely no excuse for that section of Commerce to go so long without sidewalks.
3. Build out the parks that are already proposed, and add in more lighting and art installations at all the underpasses where people go from DE to CBD and back. There are already a few decent areas near the dog park (great use of this land btw), but this needs to be improved and done throughout.
4. Streamline/simplify the mess of ramps between Elm and I30. It is a total cluster that should never have been built the way it was. One consolidated soutbound onramp and one consolidated northbound offramp that breaks from the main lanes is just fine. The meandering monstrosity that exists today has no purpose other than lining the pockets of some contractor that undoubtedly had connections at some point. This last item isn't necessary for short term success, but it would be helpful.
Then... eventually, maybe we can tunnel some lanes and tear this thing down.

Re: I-345

Posted: 28 Jun 2019 09:45
by Cbdallas
Just some cool solar powered (panels could be places on outside of freeway sides) color LED lights that would light up underneath from Woodall Rogers over to 30 would enliven both downtown and deep ellum and connect the two hoods.

Re: I-345

Posted: 28 Jun 2019 09:50
by Cbdallas
Like this in Albuquerque.

Re: I-345

Posted: 28 Jun 2019 10:04
by muncien
^^
Love it!

Re: I-345

Posted: 28 Jun 2019 12:36
by tamtagon
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.

Re: I-345

Posted: 28 Jun 2019 13:13
by The_Overdog
Like this in Albuquerque.

Albuquerque has really nice looking freeways, with lights, public art, and basic but effective signage in an actually readable font imprinted on their bridges that is streets ahead of anywhere in DFW.

Re: I-345

Posted: 28 Jun 2019 14:38
by Tnexster
Cbdallas wrote:Like this in Albuquerque.


That's pretty awesome! Wish we could do that here.

Re: I-345

Posted: 28 Jun 2019 14:47
by Hannibal Lecter
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.


Amen, bro.

Re: I-345

Posted: 01 Jul 2019 18:01
by quixomniac
Cbdallas wrote:Like this in Albuquerque.

That's exactly what I was thinking! looks amazing.
Thanks for the upload.
I agree that they definitely section off the neighbordhoods.
If the ramps and grids were more aligned it would help significantly.
One city I can think of is Austin.
Their downtown isnt bounded by highways except towards the river.
One effect is that Austin's downtown blends seemlessly with the neighborhoods.
Their traffic is pretty atrocious on the other hand. I have a hard time imagining it getting better.
But I would argue that it is their grid street like system that makes it feel seemless.

Re: I-345

Posted: 10 Jul 2019 12:06
by MC_ScattCat
What about like Shanghai with the blue or even blue & green?

Re: I-345

Posted: 14 Sep 2019 16:01
by Cord1936
Image

Michael Morris: Soccer Fields Under I-345 Will Help Bring the World Cup to Dallas
by Tim Rogers, D Magazine, September 13, 2019

Yesterday at a meeting of the Regional Transportation Council, something quite spectacular came out of director Michael Morris’ mouth. You can watch it for yourself. Fast forward to the 4:00 mark of the video for item No. 5. But first let me set this up for you.

Earlier this year, news broke that Roddrick West, son of State Sen. Royce West, was close to signing a deal that would allow him to build soccer fields under I-345. Royce, it should be noted, is very much opposed to tearing down I-345. This soccer field deal would seem to make it much harder to tear down the highway, and all this had been going on without any public debate about it. No matter. Robert Wilonsky at the Morning News said there was nothing to worry about. Everything was on the up and up.
....
Read more: https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2019/09/michael-morris-soccer-fields-under-i-345-will-help-bring-the-world-cup-to-dallas/?ref=mpw

Re: I-345

Posted: 15 Sep 2019 08:39
by tamtagon
Gotta get the cotton bowl fixed up first