AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Dallas: I-345  (Read 15523 times)

motorola870

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 99
  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: May 18, 2022, 10:19:56 PM
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2019, 10:31:36 PM »

While I would like to see it happen, I'm not going to hold my breath for I-45 to get signed North of downtown Dallas all the way up to the Red River (and potentially farther into Oklahoma once Interstate quality upgrades are complete from the river to US-70 in Durant). Texas has been inconsistent at best with applying for Interstate designations to newly built freeways, toll roads and extensions of existing freeways. The I-14 and I-69 efforts are the only exceptions, and those are tied to larger multi-state corridor efforts.

US-75 is going to be brought up 100% to modern Interstate quality standards from Dallas to the Red River. The US-75/US-69 corridor will continue to get Interstate quality upgrades (slowly) along spot segments in Oklahoma in response to very heavy traffic from commercial trucks and other long distance traffic bypassing OKC and Tulsa to get to points Northeast. If TX DOT chooses to extend the I-45 designation Northward I'll bet they won't do it until the I-345 situation in downtown Dallas is resolved. If the solution is replacing the existing elevated freeway with one in a trench (capped or not) that project would hold up any extension of I-45 on North until the project is finished.

There again TXDOT has gone on record with grayson county officials about this and words were thrown around that it is intended to get interstate status and I don't they would mention reasons for an interstate if it was not planned and two they don't have to wait to resign 345 as 45 heck to be honest do it now to shut up these people trying to parrot a reason to destroy it so a few can pocket off of state owned right of way which to be honest if they keep any future plans in the same row that TXDOT owns Dallas cannot say a word on how it is done other than give ideas.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3108
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 09:45:22 PM
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #26 on: October 14, 2019, 12:24:30 AM »

Are there any news articles in print where representatives from TX DOT are going on the record saying the US-75 freeway from North Dallas up to the Red River will be designated as an Interstate (particularly I-45)? I haven't searched high and low for such official word, assuming no official decision had been made on it yet.

Neverthless, I always wondered if/when US-75 going North out of Dallas would receive an Interstate designation. That goes back to the mid 1990's when the old 55mph national speed limit was tossed. For a short period the 55mph limit was lifted only on Interstate highways. As least that's how it looked in Oklahoma and Texas. Yet US-75 North of Dallas was among the freeways whose speed limit was lifted (as high as 75mph if I recall correctly).

Regarding the designation of I-45 across existing I-345 as a means to head-off the "new urbanists" and their drive to remove the elevated freeway, it sounds like a good idea. If the decision was up to me I would do it in a heart beat.

I've had my own suspicions about who is really behind the efforts to tear down the elevated freeway. I can't help but wonder if some connected real estate developers are working behind the scenes to tear down unsigned I-345. The motivation is very obvious: remove the freeway and then develop all that vacated land into office towers and luxury apartments. If the real estate folks do confirm my conspiracy theory I hope they realize all those big freeways that canvas the greater DFW metroplex have helped that region grow. Severing what should become a longer I-45 would seriously harm the freeway system functions in downtown Dallas, if not farther out from downtown.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2019, 04:45:40 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7529
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 02:16:57 AM
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #27 on: October 14, 2019, 01:12:21 AM »

Neverthless, I always wondered if/when US-75 going North out of Dallas would receive an Interstate designation. That goes back to the mid 1990's when the old 55mph national speed limit was tossed. For a short period the 55mph limit was lifted only on Interstate highways. At least that's how it looked in Oklahoma and Texas. Yet US-75 North of Dallas was among the freeways whose speed limit was lifted (as high as 75mph if I recall correctly).

My recollection is that when the double-nickel limit was relaxed to permit 65 on rural freeways, this resulted in some state-route or unnumbered freeways (e.g. Illinois SR 5, Kansas Turnpike between Emporia and Topeka) being made Interstates so they could be given 65 limits; later this was relaxed to allow 65 on non-Interstate rural freeways.  Limits above 65 did not return to Texas until the NMSL was finally abolished by the NHSDA in 1996, and initially 70 was the top limit.  75 and higher limits came later.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

motorola870

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 99
  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: May 18, 2022, 10:19:56 PM
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #28 on: October 25, 2019, 03:55:09 PM »

Are there any news articles in print where representatives from TX DOT are going on the record saying the US-75 freeway from North Dallas up to the Red River will be designated as an Interstate (particularly I-45)? I haven't searched high and low for such official word, assuming no official decision had been made on it yet.

Neverthless, I always wondered if/when US-75 going North out of Dallas would receive an Interstate designation. That goes back to the mid 1990's when the old 55mph national speed limit was tossed. For a short period the 55mph limit was lifted only on Interstate highways. As least that's how it looked in Oklahoma and Texas. Yet US-75 North of Dallas was among the freeways whose speed limit was lifted (as high as 75mph if I recall correctly).

Regarding the designation of I-45 across existing I-345 as a means to head-off the "new urbanists" and their drive to remove the elevated freeway, it sounds like a good idea. If the decision was up to me I would do it in a heart beat.

I've had my own suspicions about who is really behind the efforts to tear down the elevated freeway. I can't help but wonder if some connected real estate developers are working behind the scenes to tear down unsigned I-345. The motivation is very obvious: remove the freeway and then develop all that vacated land into office towers and luxury apartments. If the real estate folks do confirm my conspiracy theory I hope they realize all those big freeways that canvas the greater DFW metroplex have helped that region grow. Severing what should become a longer I-45 would seriously harm the freeway system functions in downtown Dallas, if not farther out from downtown.
It is obvious they want to build condos and bars with music venues there it is on the edge of deep ellum they want to cash in and think that saying Dallas doesn't need 345 is a lie. It is a through route. People take it from Houston up to Tulsa not stopping in Dallas. Do we really need to bend the freeway onto 30 and back around on woodall rogers so a few people can cash in just like this deck park project in houston is nonsense and the replacement is a no brainer and TXDOT fell for that sham.
Logged

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 597
  • Safety > Danger ... Road Buffets > Road Diets

  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 06:29:44 AM
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #29 on: October 25, 2019, 10:01:04 PM »

That is their intentions. They like to make up other excuses ...

...

... such as more people should ride transit.

There are many times that when I can I want to ride transit so I do not have to worry about drunk drivers or speeding or waiting through road construction. If The Bullet Train ever opens, I will ride it. ...

...

... However, New Urbanists do not really care about that. Transit (Including DART) can be improved without demolishing roads. New Urbanists want it to be Trending. Also whenever they decide the buildings they built are "ugly" they will demolish them also. ...

...

... TX DOT Needs to keep the "extra" land for for its own development of lane expansions, deck parks, and perhaps frontage road parks.

Logged
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3108
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 09:45:22 PM
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #30 on: October 26, 2019, 12:18:41 PM »

As I've said before, many businesses in the downtown Dallas area (including all the night spots in Deep Ellum) depend greatly on visitors who live well outside that area. Not everyone who works in all those tall office towers takes the DART train to work; plenty of them drive. Venues like Fair Park and the American Airlines Arena draw huge numbers of people. I-35, I-30, I-45, The Woodall Rogers Freeway, North Central Expressway and Unsigned I-345 are all vital connections for moving those people to and from downtown. If the New Urbanists start removing major segments of the freeway network downtown it will kill business.

Traffic in downtown Dallas is bad enough as it is. Removing Unsigned I-345 would make matters even worse for motorists. Obviously that's part of the New Urbanist game plan, make driving so intolerable that it forces people onto mass transit. That strategy will not work. It will backfire.

Without a properly functional freeway network the people out in the suburbs will end up just avoiding downtown completely, spending all their time and money out there in the suburbs. There's lots of other places of interest in the Dallas Fort Worth area. I've made many road trips to DFW without coming near the downtown zone. As for the many thousands of people who work downtown, their situations may change if commuting to/from downtown becomes too much of a hassle. A lot of major companies have built large offices out in suburban campus style environments rather than the old convention of moving into a downtown office tower. Legacy Drive in Plano was an early example of this trend. Improving technology and Internet speeds are making "telecommuting" and home office setups more feasible.

In short: if the anti-freeway folks are able to start ripping out freeways in downtown Dallas they'll inflict a big economic downturn upon the downtown area.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2021, 04:00:40 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6470
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Tulsa
  • Last Login: May 19, 2022, 06:20:22 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #31 on: November 22, 2019, 04:37:01 AM »

I hope none of these people have any ambitions to remove I-30 on the East side of downtown. That would be a whole lot worse than removing I-345 (which should not be done either).
One has to be delusional to think that the road-haters will be satisfied by just tearing down this highway. Their endgame is the removal of all freeways from downtown Dallas.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2823
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 02:06:33 AM
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #32 on: March 12, 2021, 01:59:52 PM »

So there is an issue with the D2 subway at the 345 corridor. Transit advocates want it built which would supposedly be an issue with a rebuilt I-345(potential future I-45) freeway below grade. Why canít the subway simply be built deeper than the freeway? Why not build both at the same time as to potentially brand the 345 rebuild as also a project that would construct a new subway? It seems like a win-win.

This is coming up now due to fears the subway line will loose out on federal money.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/new-debate-over-dallas-d-2-downtown-subway-transit-plan/2577295/

Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 817
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 11:35:39 PM
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #33 on: March 12, 2021, 04:50:51 PM »

So there is an issue with the D2 subway at the 345 corridor. Transit advocates want it built which would supposedly be an issue with a rebuilt I-345(potential future I-45) freeway below grade. Why canít the subway simply be built deeper than the freeway? Why not build both at the same time as to potentially brand the 345 rebuild as also a project that would construct a new subway? It seems like a win-win.

This is coming up now due to fears the subway line will loose out on federal money.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/new-debate-over-dallas-d-2-downtown-subway-transit-plan/2577295/

If you're already thinking about digging a big tunnel to place a highway underground, it would make total sense to make accommodations for a future subway line using the same tunnel. Just build a bigger tunnel that can fit both.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2823
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 02:06:33 AM
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #34 on: March 12, 2021, 04:55:24 PM »

So there is an issue with the D2 subway at the 345 corridor. Transit advocates want it built which would supposedly be an issue with a rebuilt I-345(potential future I-45) freeway below grade. Why canít the subway simply be built deeper than the freeway? Why not build both at the same time as to potentially brand the 345 rebuild as also a project that would construct a new subway? It seems like a win-win.

This is coming up now due to fears the subway line will loose out on federal money.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/new-debate-over-dallas-d-2-downtown-subway-transit-plan/2577295/

If you're already thinking about digging a big tunnel to place a highway underground, it would make total sense to make accommodations for a future subway line using the same tunnel. Just build a bigger tunnel that can fit both.
Yeah Iím really not understanding why both modes have to be at the same level. The subway is needed and will be a huge asset to downtown Dallas. Furthermore I-345 is needed for the metro as a whole and eventually regionally as part of I-45 and rebuilding it to be a better neighbor for the nearby community being below grade will be beneficial as well. It doesnít seem like a hard problem to solve.

Part of me thinks the group that wants to just eliminate 345 entirely is simply using this as an excuse claiming it has to be one or the other.
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1563
  • Age: 58
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 02:59:18 AM
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #35 on: March 12, 2021, 06:42:37 PM »

So there is an issue with the D2 subway at the 345 corridor. Transit advocates want it built which would supposedly be an issue with a rebuilt I-345(potential future I-45) freeway below grade. Why canít the subway simply be built deeper than the freeway? Why not build both at the same time as to potentially brand the 345 rebuild as also a project that would construct a new subway? It seems like a win-win.

This is coming up now due to fears the subway line will loose out on federal money.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/new-debate-over-dallas-d-2-downtown-subway-transit-plan/2577295/

If you're already thinking about digging a big tunnel to place a highway underground, it would make total sense to make accommodations for a future subway line using the same tunnel. Just build a bigger tunnel that can fit both.
Yeah Iím really not understanding why both modes have to be at the same level. The subway is needed and will be a huge asset to downtown Dallas. Furthermore I-345 is needed for the metro as a whole and eventually regionally as part of I-45 and rebuilding it to be a better neighbor for the nearby community being below grade will be beneficial as well. It doesnít seem like a hard problem to solve.

Part of me thinks the group that wants to just eliminate 345 entirely is simply using this as an excuse claiming it has to be one or the other.

All of me thinks that this group is simply using the subway as a ruse for eliminating 345 and replacing it with a "boulevard". But, that's only my opinion, I suppose.
Logged

MaxConcrete

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 851
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Last Login: May 22, 2022, 08:27:14 PM
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #36 on: March 12, 2021, 11:09:21 PM »

My perception was that NCTCOG had established a committee to resolve this issue about 1-2 years ago, and I'm surprised to hear that it has not been resolved. This certainly is concerning, because if the D2 subway precludes a sunken IH-345, then IH-345 is at much greater risk for removal.

NCTCOG is courting Transportation Secretrary Buttigieg with NCTCOG's freeway removal and mitigation program, see item 4.1 in the link below. The D2 project has a page in the presentation, and it shows the tunnel portal beginning immediately west of the current elevated structure. It also says the northbound Central Expressway frontage road would be closed. The train will be in a transition mode from ground level to the tunnel portal where it is underneath the freeway, which seems like it would in fact preclude the lowering of the freeway. Looking at the map, it appears there may not be sufficient space to get the train low enough on the east side of the freeway.

https://www.nctcog.org/nctcg/media/Transportation/Committees/RTC/2021/agenda-packet-mar.pdf?ext=.pdf

On a related note, the alignment for the D2 light rail link goes through the Lizard Lounge, which closed in 2020 due to Covid-19.
As the article below notes, "this is not just another crazy chapter in the barís history, which includes legendary block parties under the nearby overpass, as well as Dennis Rodman and Madonna showing up in a black Ferrari back in the mid í90s, wanting to buy the place."
https://www.dallasnews.com/arts-entertainment/music/2020/05/09/dallas-iconic-lizard-lounge-shutters-after-28-years/

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 597
  • Safety > Danger ... Road Buffets > Road Diets

  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 06:29:44 AM
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #37 on: March 13, 2021, 07:02:50 AM »


They have been able to build all the other Deck Parks. ( There are many of them. ) It is unacceptable for them to shirk The Unfinished Corridor. Also, it is unacceptable for them to remove a Frontage Road. It is very simple to reconstruct the existing At Grade Parks as Deck Parks. D.A.R.T. all ready has a line that goes under The Unfinished Corridor. They need to reconstruct this as a tunnel, and are currently not doing every thing that is necessary.

Quote
As the article below notes, "this is not just another crazy chapter in the barís history, which includes legendary block parties under the nearby overpass, as well as Dennis Rodman and Madonna showing up in a black Ferrari back in the mid í90s, wanting to buy the place."
https://www.dallasnews.com/arts-entertainment/music/2020/05/09/dallas-iconic-lizard-lounge-shutters-after-28-years/

That is proof the "community" is not "displaced". They find plenty of useful things to do with the Bridge.
Logged
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1180
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 08:25:50 AM
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #38 on: March 14, 2021, 09:42:38 PM »

The reason it was built elevated was so that you could walk or drive unabated from downtown to Deep Ellum or East Dallas.  The freeway doesn't divide anything.

The simple fact is that uptown was built with Woodall - Rogers separating it from downtown. Uptown came decades after Woodall-Rogers. The idea of building Klyde Warren Park came even later.  This is all a bunch of smoke and mirrors to accomplish one of two things: Either to drive through traffic past new businesses the proponents would build or to rid downtown of freeways.  Both of those groups support the removal.

The simple fact is to redevelop anything you have to either replace or refurbish it. The problem of urban blight is more about substandard properties being used until they collapse. Code enforcement would do more than any freeway removal. The freeway removal MIGHT cause substandard dwellings to be removed or upgraded, but that does NOT help the impoverished. That just drives gentrification which forces the impoverished population(s) to move to somewhere else into substandard housing. The economic model says that yes, at street level you will see changes. These changes are all shifts, not improvement.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 597
  • Safety > Danger ... Road Buffets > Road Diets

  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 06:29:44 AM
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #39 on: March 15, 2021, 04:14:51 AM »

We need more Super Highways, not less. ... And they need to be improved. Even if that means having "Big Ugly Interchanges" to provide Connectivity to other Interchanges. There are so many Highways that are being Disrupted by traffic lights when people leave one highway to get to another, that the ramps are not long enough ... and the traffic backs up on to the shoulders (!) ... There are also people that decide a Shoulder can be a passing lane. When they try to pass on the shoulder, they prevent people from exiting ... or end up almost exiting at the wrong exit. If the passing lane is full, that does not mean clog the shoulder by trying to pass on it. The shoulders have many traffic lined up waiting to exit but are stopped at traffic lights.

Roundabouts And Rotaries ? ? ... They are no good. Take one and guarantee you took the wrong road. Street Signs on them are either way too small or Street Signs do not even exist.
Logged
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

motorola870

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 99
  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: May 18, 2022, 10:19:56 PM
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #40 on: March 15, 2021, 06:29:31 AM »

We need more Super Highways, not less. ... And they need to be improved. Even if that means having "Big Ugly Interchanges" to provide Connectivity to other Interchanges. There are so many Highways that are being Disrupted by traffic lights when people leave one highway to get to another, that the ramps are not long enough ... and the traffic backs up on to the shoulders (!) ... There are also people that decide a Shoulder can be a passing lane. When they try to pass on the shoulder, they prevent people from exiting ... or end up almost exiting at the wrong exit. If the passing lane is full, that does not mean clog the shoulder by trying to pass on it. The shoulders have many traffic lined up waiting to exit but are stopped at traffic lights.

Roundabouts And Rotaries ? ? ... They are no good. Take one and guarantee you took the wrong road. Street Signs on them are either way too small or Street Signs do not even exist.
It's what happens when you let land developers run the show. This should have been shutdown years ago and just either agreed on a proper replacement viaduct or trenching it. DART at this point should be forced to make concessions to pave way for a proper rebuild. They just want the land for more music venues and bars and multi tenant housing it isn't about best interest in the region it is for big pockets down in deep ellum enrich themselves. The same crap going on in Houston and the "expert" Urbanist failed at one of the removals. Some of this is getting out of hand. When we have urban planners making slides showing skewed pedestrian and bike friendly drawings that discount reality with ease of access its not hard to imagine why this project is getting the urban tear down nonsense. It's critical compared to other cities even Houstons rebuild of downtown looks ridiculous trying to funnel 45 down the other side. These people that think freeways destroyed neighborhoods fail to realize how areas decline. Yes some areas lost homes and businesses but this freeway did nowhere near as much damage as land grabs for building and expanding fair park.
Logged

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 597
  • Safety > Danger ... Road Buffets > Road Diets

  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 06:29:44 AM
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #41 on: March 16, 2021, 06:14:19 AM »

It would be nice if D.A.R.T. perfected its existing Subway Line ... such as opening Knox Henderson ... before attempting adding more Subway Lines.
Logged
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2090
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 10:38:15 AM
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #42 on: March 16, 2021, 08:07:29 AM »

I suggest they put some lights and benches underneath it and make it into a park. It would be very popular during Dallas' hot and humid summers and anyone who suggests tearing it down would be slammed for trying to take away precious shade.

It's time we try our own tactical urbanism.

EDIT: What do you know? They're doing exactly that with Carpenter Park. I would just suggest they put some LED lights on the underside to get rid of the dark spot and perhaps to allow plants to grow.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2021, 08:17:31 AM by kernals12 »
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3108
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 09:45:22 PM
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #43 on: March 17, 2021, 10:47:23 PM »

I think the people plotting to tear down un-signed I-345 and fill the space with a list of fantasy items need a reality check.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has shaken the business model of selling commercial office tower space in high priced downtown districts. A bunch of firms have vacated space across the country. We're talking year over year occupancy downturns of 20% or even more in some places. And that's after previous years of declines.

Many businesses were forced into trying out work-from-home and other remote-office setups. And it hasn't been all bad for many companies. Some have decided they can operate with much smaller offices and staff working from home or even working from other parts of the country. Residential Internet speeds have improved so much in the past 10 years that real-time video teleconferencing and sharing of large files is practical through much of the nation. It's not as necessary to spend a fortune on high priced downtown commercial office space anymore. This trend has the potential to put a lot of downward pressure on downtown zones of high priced real estate markets. I think more businesses will be interested in saving money/driving up profit margins rather than spending a lot on the status to be in a downtown office building. This is one of the big flaws in the whole New Urbanist ideology. The economics just aren't there to support it. And building skyscrapers downtown is very 20th Century for the US. It's not necessary here anymore.

This is another reason why it is really a very risky thing for New Urbanist types to go ripping out downtown freeways and make it a time consuming and even costly pain in the @$$ to visit downtown. If they're not careful they'll see an exodus of both daytime/work activity and nighttime-related business. I'm not going to visit some area where there isn't an easy way to get in and out.
Logged

motorola870

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 99
  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: May 18, 2022, 10:19:56 PM
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #44 on: March 19, 2021, 07:03:27 AM »

I suggest they put some lights and benches underneath it and make it into a park. It would be very popular during Dallas' hot and humid summers and anyone who suggests tearing it down would be slammed for trying to take away precious shade.

It's time we try our own tactical urbanism.

EDIT: What do you know? They're doing exactly that with Carpenter Park. I would just suggest they put some LED lights on the underside to get rid of the dark spot and perhaps to allow plants to grow.
You mean like what Arlington is doing to city center? Where they did the Abram Street road diet? They made it safer while making it more attractive and pedestrian and bike friendly. That entire area has gone under review and rebuild in last 20 years. It is amazing what the 2003 order of twinning FM157 down TX180 former US80 can do. Remove it from state highway system lower it to a 3 lane from 5 with a turn lane and add add wide pedestrian paths and parking while shifting traffic destined for Euless, grapevine, Bedford, Mansfield onto one state highway. The city is even recomending a feasibility study on converting Center and Mesquite Streets back to two way traffic and they have left it open to as easy as flipping the striping at 101 center they have made the traffic signals ready to add a flashing yellow left for northbound center and southbound Mesquite if the city chose to go through with it. It would convert the reverse angle parking at 101 center to forwards parking on center and Mesquite. Only think I think that would need pontentially need reconstruction is the park at FUMC but that is easy as restripping. Common sense upgrades are good.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2021, 07:19:33 AM by motorola870 »
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1180
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 08:25:50 AM
Re: Dallas mayoral runoff results: Good news for I-345
« Reply #45 on: March 19, 2021, 11:15:45 AM »

I don't think anyone thinks that there is not positive to come out of some of the efforts to make pedestrian friendly commercial neighborhood streets. In this case the traffic was rerouted and it has worked out well. What was removed was a 1940's vintage roadway that  had been bypassed by  Division Street as US-80 (Now TX180) and the building of The DFW Turnpike (I-30) and even I-20 to the south.

I agree there needs to be walkable areas in our cities and towns.  US 75 / (unsigned)I-345 are not the place. The only thing the I-345 thing is about is making downtown expand further east.  The only bearing Deep Ellum has is that the property values skyrocket (as teardown properties) if I-345 is gone and the mentality could shift to Deep Ellum being part of downtown as opposed to it being part of East Dallas.

The urbanists might get the freeway removed, but they will as surely lose as the commuters will have.



Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1180
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 08:25:50 AM
Why is it I-345? Why is it unsigned?
« Reply #46 on: March 19, 2021, 12:10:28 PM »

Part of the initiative to remove the elevated section of freeway to the east side of downtown Dallas dwells on the ominous I-345.

When I-45 reached the current-day I--30 (then I-20) south of downtown Dallas there was no consensus where I-45 should go next (still isn't).  There were several schools of thought. One was to follow a road proposed on a regional mobility plan "the East Dallas North / South Freeway" which would roughly follow SH78.  Another was to follow I-20 to I-35 then I-35 to the Carpenter Freeway and Route I-45 along TX-114. There were probably other ideas, but the one that came to fruition was to just leave it as it was. 

The plan was  to use "Interstate Money" to bridge the gap between I-45 (Julius Schepps Freeway) and the already built US-75 Central Expressway north of downtown. That required an Interstate Number and an Interstate quality road.  SO to leave the options open, they associated the number I-345 to the roadway. The signs initially were a US75 shield with an arrow. It has been in the past decade or two that the sign purists even bothered to put up "to" signs.  (As far as that goes, it has been the past decade before spur 557 outside of Terrell had anything besides US-80 shields and an arrow going westbound. Likewise for I-20 going Eastbound. )

The reason it is unsigned is the transition would be awkward. It would be akin to numbering a bridge as a separate highway.  Using I-345 would confuse some as they would think it was a separate routing as opposed to just a transition between the two.  It hasn't been retroactively changed because Texas doesn't do minor reroute / renumbers. Until the urbanists seized upon the number, it was pointless, just a technicality on paper.

Today, it seems that they MIGHT finally use I-45  for US-75 to Oklahoma, then again, maybe not!
« Last Edit: March 19, 2021, 12:27:54 PM by bwana39 »
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

MaxConcrete

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 851
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Last Login: May 22, 2022, 08:27:14 PM
Re: Dallas: I-345
« Reply #47 on: June 22, 2021, 06:43:07 PM »

The public meeting materials are now available
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/I345

There are schematics for four options: elevated (on a narrower footprint), two depressed options, and removal.

What's interesting is that the removal option makes it very inconvenient to connect between the freeway ends, and as a practical matter appears to discourage the option of connecting on city streets.

On the south end, IH-45 connects into Canton Street, which is a low-capacity east-west street. On the North end, US 75 connects into Cesar Chavez street with a curvy boulevard.

The best option to connect would be via 2x2 Good Latimer, which already has light rail tracks in its median, a station in the middle of the street (meaning lots of pedestrians), and two places where the tracks cross over the street with an at-grade crossing. Plans for the D2 subway will make this section of track much busier in the future, with more street delays due to trains. The D2 subway will introduce two more track crossings on the southbound lanes. Taking Good Latimer requires two left turns for southbound traffic, and two right turns for northbound traffic.

A second option for connecting is on Hawkins Street, one lane each way with 7 intersecting streets between Cesar Chavez and Canton. It requires two left turns for southbound traffic, and two right turns for northbound traffic.

The third and longest option is to use Chavez and Canton Streets, which requires a right turn for northbound traffic and a left turn for southbound traffic.

The traffic impact analysis shows drastically higher congestion increases for the removal option, 18000 hours per day vs 4000 per day for the depressed options and 2000 per day for the elevated option.

As for the depressed options, the more complicated "Hybrid" option has more street connectivity and shows a longer area of potential cap over the freeway.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2021, 06:47:07 PM by MaxConcrete »
Logged

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 597
  • Safety > Danger ... Road Buffets > Road Diets

  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 06:29:44 AM
Re: Dallas: I-345
« Reply #48 on: June 23, 2021, 12:39:30 AM »

Quote

At this station, you can:

View information on each of the 5 alternatives to help you better understand and visualize what is being proposed.

Each alternative includes typical sections, a conceptual rendering and a roll plot with design details.



No Build/Leave I-345 As-Is:  No additional improvements would occur to I-345 other than those already programmed.


In addition to The Necessary Superhighway needing to be widened, and also The Necessary Superhighway needs to have Traffic Cameras And Electric Fences.

Quote

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


That Is Good News about a solution with D.A.R.T. rail lines. They would go above The Necessary Superhighway.

A solution for Pedestrian And Bicycle Facilities can also include Deck Parks.

I Hate Discontinuous Frontage Roads.

Quote

Removal Alternative:  The existing mainlanes would be removed and the city grid is reconnected. Includes pedestrian and bicycle facilities.


That is very misleading. There is no Disconnected City Grid.

How ever, it would be nice to add Traffic Cameras And Electric Fences to protect The Necessary Superhighway.

Quote

Elevated Alternative:  Similar to what exists now, with a smaller footprint of an elevated highway with aesthetic improvements, revised access and signage for drivers, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities under the highway.


As I have typed here:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29349.msg2623750;topicseen#msg2623750

Narrowing The Necessary Superhighway is good (at least it would remain Intact) but not good enough. They need to give up on their intentions to have more Dance Clubs and Liquor Stores and Green Space (which all ready exists) as they need to widen it, not make it narrower. Traffic is bad now, and it will increase in future.

If they Make It Narrower, then that would make it Necessary to widen every other highway. They need to be widened also since they have increasing traffic as well.

Widening an alternate route but not the main route does not guarantee that every body would take the alternate routes. U.S. 377 is an example of an alternate route that needs to be widened, but most traffic stays on Interstate 35. Interstate 35 is going to be widened, but there is still increasing traffic, and also traffic problems which might be partially solved:

https://i.imgur.com/XBAJ74O.jpg

but traffic halts often be cause of The Insufficient Interchanges.

U.S. 281 is an example of an alternate route that needs to be widened and provides a complete detour of Fort Worth. How ever, traffic increases on every highway.

...

As for the Aesthetic Improvements, that is proof that it can be done. Fortify The Necessary Superhighway With Beautiful Red Bricks.

... And Electric Fences And Traffic Cameras.

Quote

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


There is that misleading word again. I do not see a plethora of Dead End Streets as a result of The Necessary Superhighway. I oppose omitting Frontage Roads even if this would go under one long Deck Park or several Deck Parks.

« Last Edit: June 23, 2021, 12:41:38 AM by In_Correct »
Logged
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3108
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 09:45:22 PM
Re: Dallas: I-345
« Reply #49 on: June 23, 2021, 04:52:50 PM »

I think the Depressed Alternative and Hybrid Alternative concepts are the best solutions. Sinking the freeway below grade creates the opportunity to cap it where possible.

I don't have a problem with the Hybrid Alternative removing frontage roads. The main purpose of un-signed I-345 is to provide a thru connection between I-45 and North Central Expressway. Frontage roads aren't necessary for that. There is a minimum of freeway entrance and exit ramps to/from surface streets between I-30 and Woodall Rodgers Freeway. I think that's a good thing because it would limit the freeway's impact on local street traffic.

The Elevated Alternative is likely DOA.

The Removal Alternative would really make it a 100% PITA for anyone trying to drive directly North from the end of I-45 to the start of North Central Expressway. The motorist would have to go through what looks to be 17 intersections, and make right turns at three of those intersections. The situation would be even worse going Southbound since three left turns would be involved.

Traffic on I-45 intended for North Central would have to go through the I-30/I-35E mix-master and then back-track on Woodall Rodgers Freeway. That wouldn't be much fun, but stoplight hell isn't any fun either. Other alternatives would be avoiding Downtown Dallas completely by using I-20 & I-635. The Bush Tollway would be another alternative if its Southeast quadrant ever gets completed.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.