The runoff featured Eric Johnson and Scott Griggs. Griggs is a big opponent of I-345, and he states the following in a Dallas Morning News report https://voterguide.dallasnews.com/2019-municipal-elections/candidates/934/ (https://voterguide.dallasnews.com/2019-municipal-elections/candidates/934/)
Quote
On highways, I support the removal of I-345 to a boulevard system to reunite downtown, the Arts District, and Deep Ellum. I was the Councilmember that killed the Trinity Tollroad. I will be the Mayor that removes I-345. I also support a new I-30 that will reunite downtown, Fair Park, and the Cedars.
Johnson does not appear to oppose I-345, although I don't know that he supports its continued existence. In a Dallas Morning News interview, he makes no mention of I-345 in the transportation section.
https://voterguide.dallasnews.com/2019-municipal-elections/candidates/935/ (https://voterguide.dallasnews.com/2019-municipal-elections/candidates/935/)
Very good news: Johnson won, with 56% of the vote
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/elections/2019/06/08/state-rep-eric-johnson-defeats-council-member-scott-griggs-become-dallas-mayor (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/elections/2019/06/08/state-rep-eric-johnson-defeats-council-member-scott-griggs-become-dallas-mayor)
Johnson will serve a four-year term, and he can serve a second term before term limits apply.
More good news: anti-freeway councilmember Philip Kingston has been been defeated. However, I don't know the transportation policy position of his replacement, David Blewett.
A contentious race, with low turnout. That said, I doubt very highly that Griggs could have done all the I-345 teardown/removal "himself", as Dallas has a weak-mayor setup, which favors the city manager more. Even if Griggs won and could go to TxDOT HQ and pound his fist, I still doubt any more would have been done to tear down the freeway with no vision of a replacement. Interesting that both candidates that were freeway activists each lost. I wonder how plans will shape up now for any of the freeway plans/redo's, like I-30.
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).
It looks like we will have to wait-and-see what happens. Hopefully, 345 stays, in some shape or form.
Of course they have ambitions. They will never really be happy until every Interstate has been destroyed.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 09, 2019, 07:06:50 PM
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).
I don't know of any political leaders who advocate rerouting of I-30. D Magazine and its extreme anti-freeway editor-in-chief Wick Allison was promoting the idea.
I-30 is slated for major reconstruction and work is funded in TxDOT's 10-year plan, somewhere between $1 and $2 billion in work. TxDOT's inital plans call for some modest expansion, but there is opposition. So the main question for I-30 is if TxDOT will be able to proceed with the expansion during reconstruction. Of course, if the project becomes too controversial, TxDOT can cancel the planned work and leave it as-is, and shift the money to where it is really wanted, which is Collin County.
As for Griggs and Kingston, they were the main anti-freeway voices on Dallas City Council, and neither have any official political power anymore. This is a big setback for the anti-freeway interests. Of course Griggs and Kingston can work politically in a non-elected capacity, but their ability to have an influence should be greatly reduced. We'll have to see if some other council member(s) will take on the anti-freeway effort. But whatever happens, the election result appears to be favorable for I-345 and I-30, at least for the next four years.
With people using phrases such as "uniting Fair Park with Downtown Dallas" that certainly makes me worry about a removal of I-30. I don't visit Downtown Dallas all that often these days, but if freeways are removed around it I would stay away even more with a vengeance. I have no desire to drive through miles upon miles of stop lights to get to downtown (and then probably pay a big sum of money just to park). There's a lot to see and do in the DFW area without ever getting near Downtown Dallas.
The anti-freeway types need to realize a thriving downtown district actually depends greatly on lots of people from the suburbs and distant communities being able to visit and do so efficiently. How many tourists are going to park their cars practically up in Carrollton or Plano to then spend an hour of time on a light rail train to visit a spot in downtown? I don't think very many are going to do that.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 10, 2019, 11:06:57 PMHow many tourists are going to park their cars practically up in Carrollton or Plano to then spend an hour of time on a light rail train to visit a spot in downtown? I don't think very many are going to do that.
I have done that as of October 2018, though not from as far out as Carrollton or Plano (my motel was near the High Five). The choice was between DART, which now is SRO in rush hour near downtown but at least allowed me to read a book, versus sitting in traffic. I didn't and don't support the removal of either I-345 or I-30, but DART worked well for my purposes, and I was quite struck by the contrast with a 2003 visit where it made the most sense to drive everywhere.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 10, 2019, 11:06:57 PM
With people using phrases such as "uniting Fair Park with Downtown Dallas" that certainly makes me worry about a removal of I-30. I don't visit Downtown Dallas all that often these days, but if freeways are removed around it I would stay away even more with a vengeance. I have no desire to drive through miles upon miles of stop lights to get to downtown (and then probably pay a big sum of money just to park). There's a lot to see and do in the DFW area without ever getting near Downtown Dallas.
The anti-freeway types need to realize a thriving downtown district actually depends greatly on lots of people from the suburbs and distant communities being able to visit and do so efficiently. How many tourists are going to park their cars practically up in Carrollton or Plano to then spend an hour of time on a light rail train to visit a spot in downtown? I don't think very many are going to do that.
DART is actually pretty convenient but they need to build their system better with 100 percent grade separation. As for freeways I agree with you.
I'm in the minority that wishes they'd build the trinity tollway. With that said, I do wish they would tunnel I-345 to connect DTDallas together better as I am a huge supporter of freeway tunnels.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 13, 2019, 03:22:19 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 10, 2019, 11:06:57 PM
With people using phrases such as "uniting Fair Park with Downtown Dallas" that certainly makes me worry about a removal of I-30. I don't visit Downtown Dallas all that often these days, but if freeways are removed around it I would stay away even more with a vengeance. I have no desire to drive through miles upon miles of stop lights to get to downtown (and then probably pay a big sum of money just to park). There's a lot to see and do in the DFW area without ever getting near Downtown Dallas.
The anti-freeway types need to realize a thriving downtown district actually depends greatly on lots of people from the suburbs and distant communities being able to visit and do so efficiently. How many tourists are going to park their cars practically up in Carrollton or Plano to then spend an hour of time on a light rail train to visit a spot in downtown? I don't think very many are going to do that.
DART is actually pretty convenient but they need to build their system better with 100 percent grade separation. As for freeways I agree with you.
I'm in the minority that wishes they'd build the trinity tollway. With that said, I do wish they would tunnel I-345 to connect DTDallas together better as I am a huge supporter of freeway tunnels.
I love DART. I love driving but hate Automobile Dependency. I also am no fan of New York City so I am glad that we have DART as an alternative. Much better than Houston's trains, DART still needs improvement.
1. It would be nice to expand DART.
2. It would be nice to have it completely grade separated.
Of course that would offend people, possibly "destroying their neighbourhoods". While I like Freeway Tunnels and Deck Parks also, this narrative of "reconnecting neighbourhoods" is nonsense. Interstate 345 consists of two freeway interchanges and several rail lines. They should have not built any streets under it. A smaller example is in Denison near Albertson's. The long highway bridge spans two or three rail lines with empty space in between for more rail lines, or even roads. But just because the bridge has open space instead of nice brick walls does not mean that every body can crowd under it. Also that bridge in Denison was recently replaced with an even fancier bridge.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 12, 2019, 03:57:49 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 10, 2019, 11:06:57 PMHow many tourists are going to park their cars practically up in Carrollton or Plano to then spend an hour of time on a light rail train to visit a spot in downtown? I don't think very many are going to do that.
I have done that as of October 2018, though not from as far out as Carrollton or Plano (my motel was near the High Five). The choice was between DART, which now is SRO in rush hour near downtown but at least allowed me to read a book, versus sitting in traffic. I didn't and don't support the removal of either I-345 or I-30, but DART worked well for my purposes, and I was quite struck by the contrast with a 2003 visit where it made the most sense to drive everywhere.
My son-in-law and I used DART from Plano to the Cotton Bowl for the OU-TX game. They were running trains every 10 minutes yet it was packed after the second stop. Way better than stressing in traffic and worrying about finding a place to park. Easy to board on the return trip and was glad I wasn't one of the hundreds walking a mile or more to their cars.
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/06/25/plans-downtown-dallas-subway-still-track-no-easy-answers (https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/06/25/plans-downtown-dallas-subway-still-track-no-easy-answers)
This article (by very anti-freeway and anti-345 columnist Robert Wilonsky) states that Dallas' transportation chief favors the removal of I-345.
However, the more important conclusion I reach from trying to parse the information in this article is that the City of Dallas is looking for a design for the proposed D2 light rail link that will not preclude any option for I-345. I think the current preferred alignment for D2 is probably incompatible with sinking I-345 into a trench, because the tunnel portal is in the middle of the I-345 alignment. So the current design for D2 would leave only two options: retaining the elevated structure or removing it. So a realignment of D2 would seem favorable to keeping I-345 but sinking it into a trench. But as the article states, changing the alignment would introduce a big complication into current planning by DART.
(https://dallasnews.imgix.net/1561481394-D2-Map.png?bg=fff&auto=format&q=50&or=)
Larger map : https://dallasnews.imgix.net/1561481394-D2-Map.png?bg=fff&auto=format&q=50&or= (https://dallasnews.imgix.net/1561481394-D2-Map.png?bg=fff&auto=format&q=50&or=)
That does not sound like good news.
I am a huge enthusiast of The Texas Electric Railway. But I have little confidence in DART since they have failed to build Knox Henderson Subway Station. They would have finished it if they did not listen to silly people who choose to live too close to a transport corridor.
That also applies to the people who squatted too close to the same very busy Unfinished Corridor. Add D2 and they still might complain. Or to make sure they complain, perhaps make D2 a surface rail line near the bridge which means keeping the Interstate 345 bridge as elevated over D2. After all, that is the purpose of the bridge.
Make the subway tunnel deeper? It will cost more money but bold ideas require real funding. It can be done. I-345 needs to be sunk to connect the downtown together but the freeway link needs to remain. Dallas needs to invest in real transit with a subway preferably over elevated rail. I'm not opposed to either but the at grade crossings have to go.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 27, 2019, 05:27:52 PM
Make the subway tunnel deeper? It will cost more money but bold ideas require real funding. It can be done. I-345 needs to be sunk to connect the downtown together but the freeway link needs to remain. Dallas needs to invest in real transit with a subway preferably over elevated rail. I'm not opposed to either but the at grade crossings have to go.
Are the Subway line(s) completely replacing the at grade rail crossings?
Quote from: In_Correct on June 27, 2019, 06:10:02 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 27, 2019, 05:27:52 PM
Make the subway tunnel deeper? It will cost more money but bold ideas require real funding. It can be done. I-345 needs to be sunk to connect the downtown together but the freeway link needs to remain. Dallas needs to invest in real transit with a subway preferably over elevated rail. I'm not opposed to either but the at grade crossings have to go.
Are the Subway line(s) completely replacing the at grade rail crossings?
I don't think so based from that article but they're providing a real transit system which could pave way to a grade separation project for the surface route.
On a side note for some reason I thought the original intention was to replace the at grade tracks and create a light rail subway.
Video from today's meeting
https://nctcog.swagit.com/play/10102019-640
In item 4 starting at 3:40, the director states that negotiations are in progress between DART and TxDOT to develop a design for the proposed DART subway which will accommodate a depressed I-345 in the future. The director states that it is TxDOT's and NCTCOG's intention to "eventually depress Interstate 345".
This is of course a good policy directive from NCTCOG, but is no guarantee for I-345. While the political climate for I-345 may be improved with the current mayoral administration, the depressing of I-345 would probably take place no earlier than the 2030s, and a lot can happen between now and then, e.g. political interests seeking to remove the freeway gaining power.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on October 10, 2019, 07:26:23 PM
Video from today's meeting
https://nctcog.swagit.com/play/10102019-640
In item 4 starting at 3:40, the director states that negotiations are in progress between DART and TxDOT to develop a design for the proposed DART subway which will accommodate a depressed I-345 in the future. The director states that it is TxDOT's and NCTCOG's intention to "eventually depress Interstate 345".
This is of course a good policy directive from NCTCOG, but is no guarantee for I-345. While the political climate for I-345 may be improved with the current mayoral administration, the depressing of I-345 would probably take place no earlier than the 2030s, and a lot can happen between now and then, e.g. political interests seeking to remove the freeway gaining power.
The Removal People have fewer excuses to use now.
Quote from: In_Correct on October 10, 2019, 08:03:59 PM
The Removal People have fewer excuses to use now.
I'm not so sure. They don't like depressed freeways any more than they like elevated ones, and even if it weren't for that, I could easily see them arguing "why wait until the 2030s for a depressed freeway when we can do a freeway removal now".
The proper solution (although expensive) is putting I-345 into a trench and then covering it with something like a deck park. The new urbanist crowd shouldn't have any problem with that. Eliminating I-345 between the I-45 terminus and South end of North Central Expressway would be a very bad idea. The "horseshoe" around the West side of downtown Dallas would be snarled with far more traffic.
This project would be similar to the "Central 70" project getting underway in Denver. That one will replace a badly aging, elevated freeway with a higher capacity freeway trenched below grade and capped with a 4 or 5 acre deck park spanning a couple or so blocks. Cut-and-covering I-345 between downtown and Deep Ellum could be bigger in scale. But DFW is a considerably larger metro than Denver.
Quote from: vdeane on October 11, 2019, 12:50:31 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on October 10, 2019, 08:03:59 PM
The Removal People have fewer excuses to use now.
I'm not so sure. They don't like depressed freeways any more than they like elevated ones, and even if it weren't for that, I could easily see them arguing "why wait until the 2030s for a depressed freeway when we can do a freeway removal now".
That would still take time to demolish The Bridge. Even a small amount of time such as one afternoon would be catastrophic.
...
Perhaps a demonstration blocking The Bridge to give an example of what it would be like without The Bridge. Demonstrations probably speak the same language of New Urbanists.
The demolition would have the same effect as a demonstration. Traffic Jams would occur immediately.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 11, 2019, 01:36:19 PM
The proper solution (although expensive) is putting I-345 into a trench and then covering it with something like a deck park. The new urbanist crowd shouldn't have any problem with that. Eliminating I-345 between the I-45 terminus and South end of North Central Expressway would be a very bad idea. The "horseshoe" around the West side of downtown Dallas would be snarled with far more traffic.
This project would be similar to the "Central 70" project getting underway in Denver. That one will replace a badly aging, elevated freeway with a higher capacity freeway trenched below grade and capped with a 4 or 5 acre deck park spanning a couple or so blocks. Cut-and-covering I-345 between downtown and Deep Ellum could be bigger in scale. But DFW is a considerably larger metro than Denver.
The Deck Park would not need to start out very large. Add it gradually.
...
Also, what would they do with the rail roads that The Bridge goes over?! There would still need to be a bridge, an "ugly" one, ... or will they demand the removal of the rail roads?! What would be removed would be only for a few streets since they still need to have a bridge over The Railroad.
And this applies to Digging The Trench. Will The Trench be going under the Rail Roads??
A trenched I-345 would have to go under the railroad tracks where they cross at Good Latimer. That would require at least one or more new bridges for the rail lines as well as a bridge structure for Good Latimer. It's a really complicated surface-level junction, one that would have to be reconfigured as a bridge and/or partial deck over a trenched I-345.
As for where the lowered I-345 could be capped there are a copule or so possibilities. It would be a bit much to cap the whole thing.
Obviously it would be nice if some of I-345 could be capped between Deep Ellum and downtown (maybe a couple blocks between Commerce, Main & Elm St). But US-75/I-345 is the top level leading to the I-45/I-30 stack. And there's other long ramps going North from that stack interchange. It's going to be a difficult puzzle to solve taking the end of I-45 from a high elevation to down below grade in a relatively short distance.
Farther North, the zone between Bryan Street and Ross Avenue could be capped to unite downtown and the Art District with Bryan Place to the East.
An example of how removing The Bridge would cost time and money.
The bridge discussed seems to be dormant. But The Interstate 345 Bridge is very active and used all the time.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25360.0
QuoteNow, I am not sure if the bridge has any purpose at all anymore. Except to save the money it would cost to demolish it.
Quote from: In_Correct on October 12, 2019, 02:57:41 PM
An example of how removing The Bridge would cost time and money.
The bridge discussed seems to be dormant. But The Interstate 345 Bridge is very active and used all the time.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25360.0
QuoteNow, I am not sure if the bridge has any purpose at all anymore. Except to save the money it would cost to demolish it.
TXDOT is not going to let Dallas get rid of 345 it may disappear due to 45 getting extended but they will not let a few urbanists destroy it. They have plans to push 45 into Grayson county eventually they aren't going to let a few vocal developers try to cash in on 345. They are in the process of finishing interstate grade upgrades in the next couple of years expect signing by 2025. I guess the urbanist think that 75 is going to stay signed north of woodall rogers? TXDOT has other plans and are trying to get sherman and denison interstate qualification to facilitate growth in the red river valley. I drove the stretch back in june they are close to having it full standard all the way to Colbert OK if anything I think short term I45 is going to terminate close to the casino in durant.
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 12, 2019, 11:23:30 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.
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 14, 2019, 12:24:30 AMNeverthless, 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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 09, 2019, 07:06:50 PM
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.
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 can't 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/
Quote from: Plutonic Panda 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 can't 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.
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 12, 2021, 04:50:51 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda 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 can't 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 I'm 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 doesn't 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.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 12, 2021, 04:55:24 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 12, 2021, 04:50:51 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda 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 can't 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 I'm 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 doesn't 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.
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 (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 bar's 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 '90s, wanting to buy the place."
https://www.dallasnews.com/arts-entertainment/music/2020/05/09/dallas-iconic-lizard-lounge-shutters-after-28-years/ (https://www.dallasnews.com/arts-entertainment/music/2020/05/09/dallas-iconic-lizard-lounge-shutters-after-28-years/)
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 bar's 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 '90s, wanting to buy the place."
https://www.dallasnews.com/arts-entertainment/music/2020/05/09/dallas-iconic-lizard-lounge-shutters-after-28-years/ (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.
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.
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.
Quote from: In_Correct 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.
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.
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.
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 (https://parksfordowntowndallas.org/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.
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.
Quote from: kernals12 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 (https://parksfordowntowndallas.org/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.
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.
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!
The public meeting materials are now available
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/I345 (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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 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.
The Mixmaster and Woodall Rodgers are no-gos for downtown traffic. Especially the latter, which cannot be realistically expanded.
Quote from: Road Hog on June 23, 2021, 08:22:31 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 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.
The Mixmaster and Woodall Rodgers are no-gos for downtown traffic. Especially the latter, which cannot be realistically expanded.
So then the Continuous Frontage Roads
are needed.
Existing I-345 does not have continuous frontage roads. Building at-grade frontage roads along the entire length of the project would require buying additional properties and removing them. That's why the elevated alternative and both depressed alternatives do not feature continuous frontage roads along the entire project.
Like I said on the other of the dueling threads comment....
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29349.msg2630145#msg2630145
Quote from: bwana39 on June 25, 2021, 11:14:49 AM
Like I said on the other of the dueling threads comment....
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29349.msg2630145#msg2630145
2 distinct threads for such a short highway; who woulda thunk it when it was designated 50 years ago! Since its relevance is (a) as maintaining continuity with a potential northern I-45 extension, and (b) being in the news because of RE/T efforts, if I were a mod, I'd do a merge. Just a thought!
Just put sound barriers on I-345 and people in Deep Ellum will be outraged by the idea of putting in an at-grade boulevard that makes walking to downtown much more dangerous and inconvenient and would require the paving over of Carpenter Park.
I was north of downtown over the weekend.
All of the southbound directional signs along the southbound frontage road and the connecting streets south of Lemmon Av direct you to I-45 NOT "TO I-45". Likewise the gantry signs. I-345 was a funding mechanism not a road. It has been identified as part of I-45 for decades.
Quote from: bwana39 on August 10, 2021, 10:44:29 PM
I was north of downtown over the weekend.
All of the southbound directional signs along the southbound frontage road and the connecting streets south of Lemmon Av direct you to I-45 NOT "TO I-45". Likewise the gantry signs. I-345 was a funding mechanism not a road. It has been identified as part of I-45 for decades.
Going the other way, it says "US 75 North McKinney/I-45 Ends" right before I-30, so it's not nearly so unambiguous as you present it.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 11, 2021, 01:19:31 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 10, 2021, 10:44:29 PM
I was north of downtown over the weekend.
All of the southbound directional signs along the southbound frontage road and the connecting streets south of Lemmon Av direct you to I-45 NOT "TO I-45". Likewise the gantry signs. I-345 was a funding mechanism not a road. It has been identified as part of I-45 for decades.
Going the other way, it says "US 75 North McKinney/I-45 Ends" right before I-30, so it's not nearly so unambiguous as you present it.
Agreed but not a SINGLE mention anywhere of IH-345.
Quote from: bwana39 on August 15, 2021, 04:49:58 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 11, 2021, 01:19:31 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 10, 2021, 10:44:29 PM
I was north of downtown over the weekend.
All of the southbound directional signs along the southbound frontage road and the connecting streets south of Lemmon Av direct you to I-45 NOT "TO I-45". Likewise the gantry signs. I-345 was a funding mechanism not a road. It has been identified as part of I-45 for decades.
Going the other way, it says "US 75 North McKinney/I-45 Ends" right before I-30, so it's not nearly so unambiguous as you present it.
Agreed but not a SINGLE mention anywhere of IH-345.
The textbook definition of "unsigned Interstate", along with I-595 in MD, I-296 in MI, I-315 in MT, etc. In those cases, an Interstate number wouldn't do much for actual navigational purposes -- and the route is already signed with a familiar US or state number -- and it's pretty damn short -- so posting it serves no real purpose.
Speaking of, I-345 is now signed on Google Maps.
Quote from: I-55 on August 17, 2021, 02:44:09 PM
Speaking of, I-345 is now signed on Google Maps.
Not surprising; they've signed I-305 in CA, I-595 in MD, and even the isolated former I-170 in Baltimore at various times over the last decade. Apparently they don't use our own "Unsigned Interstates" section in the Interstate Guide as a status reference; would save them the effort of taking it down later. Of course, they're beyond embarrassment at this point!
Quote from: sparker on August 17, 2021, 04:32:13 PM
Quote from: I-55 on August 17, 2021, 02:44:09 PM
Speaking of, I-345 is now signed on Google Maps.
Not surprising; they've signed I-305 in CA, I-595 in MD, and even the isolated former I-170 in Baltimore at various times over the last decade. Apparently they don't use our own "Unsigned Interstates" section in the Interstate Guide as a status reference; would save them the effort of taking it down later. Of course, they're beyond embarrassment at this point!
And they still have I-315 signed.
And Google Maps has I-69 labeled through Memphis
Quote from: bwana39 on August 17, 2021, 05:12:18 PM
And Google Maps has I-69 labeled through Memphis
And south of Cleveland.
I did not see Interstate 595 marked on Google Maps along the US 50/US 301 freeway between Exit 7 (Interstate 95/495) and Exit 24 (MD 70). In Sacramento, Interstate 305 is only marked at the western terminus of Business 80/US 50 at Interstate 80, and around the former CA 275 freeway interchange (It runs from Interstate 80 to CA 99). I'd like to see Interstate 124 marked on Google Maps in Chattanooga, TN, and Interstate 296 marked in Grand Rapids, MI.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 18, 2021, 04:46:27 PM
I did not see Interstate 595 marked on Google Maps along the US 50/US 301 freeway between Exit 7 (Interstate 95/495) and Exit 24 (MD 70). In Sacramento, Interstate 305 is only marked at the western terminus of Business 80/US 50 at Interstate 80, and around the former CA 275 freeway interchange (It runs from Interstate 80 to CA 99). I'd like to see Interstate 124 marked on Google Maps in Chattanooga, TN, and Interstate 296 marked in Grand Rapids, MI.
The Google signage of otherwise unsigned Interstate portions seems to last only as long as someone doesn't file a correction ticket. IIRC, the I-595/MD reference lasted a few months back about 2014 or 2015 before it was gone. I'm surprised that a couple of I-305 shields actually persist along US 50 near Sacramento, particularly since that's functionally just a federal chargeable-funding reference number, not even getting into Caltrans route logs! Obviously some user somewhere
really wants it known that the facility's actually an Interstate, since it hasn't been corrected as of yet.
At yesterday's NCTCOG meeting, a new proposal for the DART D2 subway was presented.
Page 76 on the agenda https://kentico-admin.nctcog.org/nctcg/media/Transportation/Committees/RTC/2021/agenda-packet-oct.pdf?ext=.pdf (https://kentico-admin.nctcog.org/nctcg/media/Transportation/Committees/RTC/2021/agenda-packet-oct.pdf?ext=.pdf)
Discussion starts at 5:50 in Item 4 of the video: https://nctcog.swagit.com/play/10152021-508 (https://nctcog.swagit.com/play/10152021-508)
The new yellow option entirely eliminates the conflict between the subway and the potential future depressed IH 345. The keeps the trenched option for IH 345 feasible with no complications. If the D2 subway precludes or massively complicates a trenched IH 345, then the only two remaining options would be to keep it elevated or remove it, which would put IH 345 at greater risk.
COG director Michael Morris mentioned that a large number of options were analyzed and this was the result of the study. So this option surely meets desired criteria. The next step is for DART and Dallas City Council to consider the alignment and state their position.
I think this new alignment makes a lot of sense. It goes underneath parks and streets north of Commerce, eliminating displacements. In the proposal, the red and orange lines (which are under Central Expressway to the north) would be tied into the tunnel instead of the Green and Purple lines, which would continue to use the Pacific Street surface alignment. I think the red and orange lines have more ridership, so it probably is better to put them in the subway
That's good I figured this was a simple fix of realigning and/or making the subway tube deeper which seemed like a no brainer.
That is very good news. It will still cost quite a lot of money to sink I-345 into a trench below street level, particularly it parts of it are covered with deck parks. Given both the Downtown Dallas location and importance of the route the cost will be worth it.
I just received an email from TXDOT stating that they anticipate that the last round of public meetings will be held in Spring 2022.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 15, 2022, 12:40:53 PM
I just received an email from TXDOT stating that they anticipate that the last round of public meetings will be held in Spring 2022.
I got it.too. It said it was in English and Spanish. el mÃÂo estaba todo en español
Good news was reported at NCTCOG yesterday. See item 4, starting at 20:00.
https://nctcog.swagit.com/play/04152022-510 (https://nctcog.swagit.com/play/04152022-510)
Director Morris said, "Some exciting work you'll hear from TxDOT in the next few months with regard to depressing 345, and the potential partner of having joint construction, potentially of D2 and the freeway in a very nice collaborative process to make sure both are successful."
D2 is the planned new subway line through downtown, which was realigned to avoid a conflict with depressing IH 345. The D2 alignment now runs along the freeway for a short distance, rather crossing it.
Hopefully this will all come together and talk of removing IH 345 entirely will end.
Great news!
The third and final public scooping meeting will be held on may 24th:
QuotePlease join the Texas Department of Transportation as we host a third and final series of public meetings on the I-345 Feasibility Study, beginning May 24.
Both in-person and virtual options are available to view the public meeting materials and offer comments. Please see the attached notices and flyers for additional details.
Notice of Public Meeting INTERSTATE 345 (I-345) From I-30 to Woodall Rodgers Freeway (Spur 366) CSJ: 0092-14-094 Dallas County, Texas
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is conducting a feasibility study for improvements to I-345 from I-30 to Woodall Rodgers Freeway (Spur 366) in Dallas County, a distance of 1.4 miles. This notice advises the public that TxDOT will be conducting an online virtual public meeting on the proposed study with two in-person options.
The same information will be presented at the in-person and virtual meetings.
In-Person Meeting 1
Tuesday, May 24, 2022
5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. (Open House)
St. Philip's School and Community Center
Gymnasium
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75215
Served by DART bus route 002
**********************************
In-Person Meeting 2
Thursday, May 26, 2022
3 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. (Open House)
Sheraton Dallas Hotel
Dallas Ballroom
400 Olive Street
Dallas, Texas 75201
Served by DART bus routes 024, 036, and 084
*****************************************
Virtual Meeting
Tuesday, May 24, 2022, at 5:30 p.m. through Monday, June 27, 2022, at 11:59 p.m.
www.keepitmovingdallas.com/I345
*This is not a live event
Please note, complimentary parking in the Sheraton Hotel parking garage will be provided for meeting attendees. Attendees should bring their parking ticket into the meeting for validation. Validation will be provided for self-parking only. In recognition of COVID-19, enhanced safety measures will be applied at the in-person option at St. Philip's School and Community Center, including a requirement to wear a face mask and a temperature check.
The virtual meeting will consist of a pre-recorded video presentation and will include both audio and visual components. The virtual meeting materials will be posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2022, at 5:30 p.m. and remain online through Monday, June 27, 2022, at 11:59 p.m. Please note, this is not a live event. The materials can be viewed at your convenience. To log onto the virtual public meeting, go to the study website listed above any time during the dates and times indicated above. If you do not have internet access, you may call (214) 320-6200 between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, to ask questions and access study materials. Additionally, TxDOT is providing in-person options for individuals who would like to participate in person. In-person attendees will be able to view the same presentation delivered in the online public meeting on a screen, review study materials, ask questions of TxDOT staff and/or consultants, and leave written comments.
Both virtual and in-person attendees will be able to learn about the study process and provide input on the recommended alternative for the future of I-345. As Dallas County population continues to grow and I-345 reaches its estimated remaining useful service life, it is necessary to plan for the future of the roadway. This study will help to determine the future of I-345.
Maps showing the study location as well as study approach information will be available for viewing at the virtual and in-person public meetings and available for public inspection Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the TxDOT Dallas District Office located at 4777 E. Highway 80, Mesquite, Texas 75150.
The virtual public meeting and in-person options will be conducted in English. If you need an interpreter or document translator because English is not your primary language or you have difficulty communicating effectively in English, one will be provided to you. If you have a disability and need assistance, special arrangements can be made to accommodate most needs. If you need interpretation or translation services or you are a person with a disability who requires an accommodation to attend and participate in the virtual public meeting or in-person options, please contact TxDOT Dallas District Public Information Office at (214) 320-4480 no later than 4 p.m., Tuesday, May 17, 2022. Please be aware that advance notice is required as some services and accommodations may require time for TxDOT to arrange.
Comments from the public regarding the proposed study are requested and may be submitted by email to 345study@txdot.gov , by mail to the TxDOT Dallas District Office, Attention: Grace Lo, P.E., 4777 E. Highway 80, Mesquite, Texas 75150-6643 or by calling (833) 933-0439 to record a verbal comment. All comments must be received on or before Monday, June 27, 2022, to be included in the official public meeting record.
If you have any general questions or concerns regarding the proposed study, please contact the TxDOT Project Manager, Ms. Grace Lo, P.E., at (214) 320-6200 or by email at 345study@txdot.gov.
The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried-out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 9, 2019, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT.
TxDOT dropped a video with their preferred design. It's going to be below grade and have fewer entrances and exits than the current freeway
All materials including schematic and video are now available. https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/I345 (https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/I345)
The selected option is the Hybrid option. The only suspense coming into this meeting was which below-ground option would be selected: hybrid or depressed.
As kernals12 mentioned, hybrid has reduced entrance/exits, reduced frontage lanes and more surface street connectivity compared to the depressed option.
Hybrid option has
* 5x5 main lanes
* No frontage roads on most of the length, with minimal frontage roads on the north end
* Interchange at IH-30 to be rebuilt as 5-level with IH-345 main lanes on the 3rd level and connection ramps on levels 4 and 5. Interchange is currently 4-level with IH-345 on top.
Changes to the hybrid option since the last design
* There is a deck over the southbound main lanes adjacent to Carpenter Plaza park. The deck will allow expansion of the park. Southbound Cesar Chavez lanes are now positioned above the middle of the freeway, and northbound Cesar Chavez lanes are over the right side of the northbound main lanes with a gap leaving some of the northbound lanes uncovered.
* Schematic shows much fewer areas as deck cap potential areas
* Accommodations for new DART rail line causes the loss of one southbound exit lane
* In the southbound direction there is a barrier between the far left lane and the other 4 lanes. The far left lane originates from the ramp from eastbound Spur 366. Presumably this is to avoid weaving and also allow that connection to not be affected by the usual backups of traffic going to the IH-30 ramps.
* Cost for the hybrid option is listed as $1 billion, which seems low to me, especially if that cost number includes rebuilding the IH-30 interchange, which is probably at least $300 million.
This is a good outcome for the recommended option, since the option of freeway removal was heavily promoted by certain anti-freeway interests. Of course, this is not the end of the story, as the struggles of Houston's NHHIP demonstrate. Nothing is final until construction actually starts, and since that is probably far in the future, there's plenty of time for opposition to launch attacks against this plan.
My only real issue with this is the atgrade dart tracks other than that I can get behind it.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on May 24, 2022, 08:06:17 PM
All materials including schematic and video are now available. https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/I345 (https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/I345)
The selected option is the Hybrid option. The only suspense coming into this meeting was which below-ground option would be selected: hybrid or depressed.
As kernals12 mentioned, hybrid has reduced entrance/exits, reduced frontage lanes and more surface street connectivity compared to the depressed option.
Hybrid option has
* 5x5 main lanes
* No frontage roads on most of the length, with minimal frontage roads on the north end
* Interchange at IH-30 to be rebuilt as 5-level with IH-345 main lanes on the 3rd level and connection ramps on levels 4 and 5. Interchange is currently 4-level with IH-345 on top.
Changes to the hybrid option since the last design
* There is a deck over the southbound main lanes adjacent to Carpenter Plaza park. The deck will allow expansion of the park. Southbound Cesar Chavez lanes are now positioned above the middle of the freeway, and northbound Cesar Chavez lanes are over the right side of the northbound main lanes with a gap leaving some of the northbound lanes uncovered.
* Schematic shows much fewer areas as deck cap potential areas
* Accommodations for new DART rail line causes the loss of one southbound exit lane
* In the southbound direction there is a barrier between the far left lane and the other 4 lanes. The far left lane originates from the ramp from eastbound Spur 366. Presumably this is to avoid weaving and also allow that connection to not be affected by the usual backups of traffic going to the IH-30 ramps.
* Cost for the hybrid option is listed as $1 billion, which seems low to me, especially if that cost number includes rebuilding the IH-30 interchange, which is probably at least $300 million.
This is a good outcome for the recommended option, since the option of freeway removal was heavily promoted by certain anti-freeway interests. Of course, this is not the end of the story, as the struggles of Houston's NHHIP demonstrate. Nothing is final until construction actually starts, and since that is probably far in the future, there's plenty of time for opposition to launch attacks against this plan.
NHHIP is going to require the displacement of hundreds of homes and businesses, this won't, and will actually create lots of surplus ROW. Dallas' equivalent to NHHIP was the widening of North Central Expressway, which was 25 years ago.
The real issue is cost. $1 billion for 1.4 miles of freeway. I think they'll have to consolidate it with a rebuild of The Canyon.
I just hope this new I-345 is less confusing to navigate than the current one. It's very easy to miss your exit, especially since Dallas drivers don't know what turn signals are for.
Dallas City Council is very adept at demanding the waste of huge amounts of money for virtue signaling projects. Except this time, unlike with their peacock bridges over the Trinity, they don't have a wealthy donor to cover much of the cost. Did they ever find a fix to finally open the ped/bike components of the I-30 fake suspension bridge? (Not that many would walk or bike next to a 60 mph freeway, it's the symbolism that counts.) Giant long span arches with no functional reason for such a costly design, since the freeway bridge in between these ped/bike monuments were plain ol' typical short highway spans. Such a phony gimmick, but quite expensive, here's a view of the reality from the Commerce bridge:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7758815,-96.8180111,3a,18y,173.31h,88.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUgGe5G9tDfBRo5DpYB_LtA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DUgGe5G9tDfBRo5DpYB_LtA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D142.75252%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
$1.4 billion could go a long way to fixing actual mobility problems.
Keeping the freeway in place is essential, the 2019 traffic count was 184,000 vehicles per day. It isn't some spur viaduct such as that freeway they demolished in Milwaukee. It's an integral part of the Dallas freeway system, connecting south to north.
184,000 v.p.d. cannot just be detoured along I-35E. It would overwhelm the interchanges with traffic turning off at a far higher volume than they are designed for. Just look at the design for the Houston I-45 project, how much they have to invest to reroute traffic away from current I-45 before it can be demolished.
On the other hand, the design shows no decks being built over the freeway. It remains a traffic environment with so many multi-lane cross streets. Even without continuous frontage roads.
The "fake suspension bridge" is a cable-stayed bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_McDermott_Bridge). However, it's not a traditional design, like the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hunt_Hill_Bridge) on the Woodall Rogers Freeway upstream, and even that is a twisted version with a St. Louis Arch-like central pier.
As to the I-345 decision, I'm glad they're keeping it in place, because to remove it would make traffic on I-35E so much worse than it already is. Not to mention that it's a vital link to the US 75 freeway north of town.
I think the I-345 design concept is pretty good. My only gripe, a minor one, is that more capacity (lanes) couldn't be added than the 5x5 max. Hopefully the signs and lane markers will be clear enough to motorists. Some of the on/off ramps are pretty long. If you miss your exit you're going to be driving a good bit before you can back-track.
Quote from: ChrisOn the other hand, the design shows no decks being built over the freeway. It remains a traffic environment with so many multi-lane cross streets. Even without continuous frontage roads.
There is a partial deck over Carpenter Plaza Park. The Southbound lanes are covered up by it.
Although there will still be lots of streets and even intersections built over the new freeway, I think the end results will be more walk-able. Every street crossing over the freeway will have dedicated sidewalks. The street bridges over the freeway can be dressed up with more bushes and potted trees to partially hide the freeway from view. The intersections will have crosswalks (just like most other parts of Downtown Dallas). The overhead viaduct will be gone, which will open a lot more sky space.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 25, 2022, 01:18:49 PM
I think the I-345 design concept is pretty good. My only gripe, a minor one, is that more capacity (lanes) couldn't be added than the 5x5 max. Hopefully the signs and lane markers will be clear enough to motorists. Some of the on/off ramps are pretty long. If you miss your exit you're going to be driving a good bit before you can back-track.
Quote from: ChrisOn the other hand, the design shows no decks being built over the freeway. It remains a traffic environment with so many multi-lane cross streets. Even without continuous frontage roads.
There is a partial deck over Carpenter Plaza Park. The Southbound lanes are covered up by it.
Although there will still be lots of streets and even intersections built over the new freeway, I think the end results will be more walk-able. Every street crossing over the freeway will have dedicated sidewalks. The street bridges over the freeway can be dressed up with more bushes and potted trees to partially hide the freeway from view. The intersections will have crosswalks (just like most other parts of Downtown Dallas). The overhead viaduct will be gone, which will open a lot more sky space.
I don't think anyone believed lanes could be added. It would just create bottlenecks
Eventually TxDOT will need to come back and explore alternatives for widening US-75. Only option realistically will be tunnels or expanding the current setup by a lane each way resulting in more of the service roads over the freeway.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 25, 2022, 03:51:32 PM
Eventually TxDOT will need to come back and explore alternatives for widening US-75. Only option realistically will be tunnels or expanding the current setup by a lane each way resulting in more of the service roads over the freeway.
No, the only thing for that is to tell drivers to start taking the LBJ Freeway
Yeesh! The thought of trying to widen North Central Expressway to the North of Downtown Dallas is pretty frightening. I still remember when they were working on the previous widening project back in the 1990's. What a mess that was. Back then I loved watching movies at the General Cinemas Northpark 1-2 theater at Northpark Mall. Getting to the theater via the nearby road construction was a real PITA. The Northpark's #1 house (1200 seats) had one of the original THX sound systems from the Return of the Jedi 70mm release in 1983. The sound quality there was outstanding; it blew away any other commercial theater I had visited, including some premiere-class locations in New York City. The sub-bass was so powerful it would rumble the air inside my chest. That big twin cinema was torn down over 20 years ago for Northpark Mall expansion. An AMC 15-plex was built there later. It has a Dolby Cinema house and an IMAX Laser house, but neither really compare to the scale of the old GCC Northpark 1-2. There is just something different about walking into a theater auditorium that has over 1000 seats.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 25, 2022, 04:04:38 PM
Yeesh! The thought of trying to widen North Central Expressway to the North of Downtown Dallas is pretty frightening. I still remember when they were working on the previous widening project back in the 1990's. What a mess that was. Back then I loved watching movies at the General Cinemas Northpark 1-2 theater at Northpark Mall. Getting to the theater via the nearby road construction was a real PITA. The Northpark's #1 house (1200 seats) had one of the original THX sound systems from the Return of the Jedi 70mm release in 1983. The sound quality there was outstanding; it blew away any other commercial theater I had visited, including some premiere-class locations in New York City. The sub-bass was so powerful it would rumble the air inside my chest. That big twin cinema was torn down over 20 years ago for Northpark Mall expansion. An AMC 15-plex was built there later. It has a Dolby Cinema house and an IMAX Laser house, but neither really compare to the scale of the old GCC Northpark 1-2. There is just something different about walking into a theater auditorium that has over 1000 seats.
You really went off topic there
I also don't think widening US 75 is necessary. When I was visiting Dallas, I drove down it at 10 AM on a Wednesday and there weren't any major backups.
Quote from: kernals12 on May 25, 2022, 07:16:19 PM
I also don't think widening US 75 is necessary. When I was visiting Dallas, I drove down it at 10 AM on a Wednesday and there weren't any major backups.
I visit Dallas somewhat often(once or twice a month) and to me US-75 is the most congested stretch of road in Dallas. It reminds me of a less congested 101 in LA but still.
I struggle to imagine how US 75 could be widened at reasonable cost with the cantilevered frontage roads. The one time I drove it, I was headed north from I-345 early on a Monday afternoon, and I found it to be congested though still flowing reasonably well. I've been within sight of it other times in the middle of the day (a DART line closely parallels it) and have seen traffic backups.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 25, 2022, 07:39:18 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 25, 2022, 07:16:19 PM
I also don't think widening US 75 is necessary. When I was visiting Dallas, I drove down it at 10 AM on a Wednesday and there weren't any major backups.
I visit Dallas somewhat often(once or twice a month) and to me US-75 is the most congested stretch of road in Dallas. It reminds me of a less congested 101 in LA but still.
I'm pretty sure that title goes to either the I-30 canyon or the LBJ Freeway.
Here's my slightly less outrageous solution: turn all of Loop 12 into a freeway.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 25, 2022, 07:39:18 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 25, 2022, 07:16:19 PM
I also don't think widening US 75 is necessary. When I was visiting Dallas, I drove down it at 10 AM on a Wednesday and there weren't any major backups.
I visit Dallas somewhat often(once or twice a month) and to me US-75 is the most congested stretch of road in Dallas. It reminds me of a less congested 101 in LA but still.
What about LBJ? Admittedly they are upgrading the last portion. Stemmons? Seems like inbound is backed up all the way to PGBT?
Traveling on Central northbound from Woodall is usually a breeze, unless there is an accident.
There are two places southbound where traffic continually stacks up on Central: just south of the High Five where you have four on-ramps merging in rapid succession; and approaching Woodall as 70 percent of the traffic tries to merge right to get onto Woodall.
Quote from: kernals12You really went off topic there
Not so much. I saw nearly all the progress on the North Central Expressway widening in the 1990's via visits to Northpark Mall and that premiere-class movie theater. That freeway widening project was very disruptive. There were times where I just had to take different routes to get to Northpark Mall, like going down I-35E to Loop 12 and taking that East. There was quite a bit of stop and go driving due to the traffic lights. But there were times that was easier than taking LBJ Freeway over to North Central and slogging South through all the construction zones.
Eventually the construction on North Central finished around the Loop 12 intersection and Northpark Mall area as work continued on farther South. As the project progressed South of Lovers Lane that's where they had to start hanging the access roads partially over the main lanes of the depressed freeway. That seemed like the most difficult part of the project.
Overall, I think North Central Expressway is maxed out on space. Just adding one lane in each direction would require a major re-build and acquisition of more ROW. Even if elevated ramps were built above the main lanes space is still needed for the support pylons and access ramps. There doesn't appear to be any spare real estate for that. Portions of that area have some high income residents. They might cry foul about elevated viaducts.
I tend to agree, Central is about as wide as it ever will be. Bout the only option is to revive the East Dallas North-South Freeway from the 1963 freeway plan... Not really a happening thing.
I think we should consider the freeways nearly built out in Dallas proper. Perhaps rebuild and make some minor expansions to the roads that are still intact from the sixties, but that is about it.
Quote from: bwana39 on May 26, 2022, 05:51:39 PM
I tend to agree, Central is about as wide as it ever will be. Bout the only option is to revive the East Dallas North-South Freeway from the 1963 freeway plan... Not really a happening thing.
I think we should consider the freeways nearly built out in Dallas proper. Perhaps rebuild and make some minor expansions to the roads that are still intact from the sixties, but that is about it.
This should include the caveat: with today's state of the art. If scientists discovered a way to vaporize rock efficiently enough that you could build an 8 lane tunnel for $100 million a mile, that would obviously change things.
For the time being the United States doesn't appear to have a hope at building tunnels for anything less than budget-busting extreme costs. The 2nd Avenue Subway project in Manhattan is a good example of how much time and cost can be involved.
Deep bore tunnels have been considered and then rejected on previous highway expansion projects in Dallas. The LBJ Freeway express lanes were once considered to be built as deep bore tunnels. It was cheaper to dig the express lanes into a trench and build the free lanes above in a sort of cantilever style. Any new lanes for North Central Expressway would probably have to be built as deep bore tunnels since there is very little if any spare room to expand horizontally. The costs of building those tunnels kills the plans.
How much do tunnels actually cost? I live in East Dallas where they have now dug and are working on the Mill Creek drainage tunnel, which is five miles long and is lined with concrete with large and small intakes all across the length of the tunnel. The size of the tunnel is actually surprising (to me) . 30 feet wide and completely line with smooth concrete meaning wide enough for two lanes. This complete system is supposed to be $300 million.
I-345 is much shorter than this. I drive I-345 many days per week depending on traffic. The complex is simply more complicated than it needs to be and does nothing to relieve the actual traffic issue in that part of Dallas which is drivers skipping I-345 and driving through the streets of Old East Dallas to reach I-30. I truly believe a bypass from Central to I-30 that lands cars further east would be far more effect than I-345 itself. That would likely mean a bored tunnel. I'm sorry but when I look at the canyon alternative I don't see how that would be cheaper than a tunnel. Look at all of the overpasses that have to be built. You're litterally having to rebuild every road crossing at I-345 and the Good Lattimer and Caesar Chavez complexes look like they will require some I-30 canyon magic. A true tunnel would require minimal disturbance to the surface(Again I'm a couple of blocks from Mill creek and the disturbances are the large intake complexes that are much larger than freeway tunnel venting.
Quote from: rantanamoI live in East Dallas where they have now dug and are working on the Mill Creek drainage tunnel, which is five miles long and is lined with concrete with large and small intakes all across the length of the tunnel. The size of the tunnel is actually surprising (to me) . 30 feet wide and completely line with smooth concrete meaning wide enough for two lanes. This complete system is supposed to be $300 million.
A tunnel for drainage is extremely different from tunnels designed to carry vehicles or trains. Engineering standards, materials used, etc are all very different.
Currently, a single tunnel holding two lanes of roadway costs about $1 billion to $2.5 billion per mile to build. Double that cost for a dual roadway Interstate facility. The differences in cost depend on the location and complexity of issues faced in the tunnel boring project. Obviously urban areas like New York City will have the most difficult obstacles. There is already a lot of other stuff buried under ground and many very heavy buildings above ground. There are major water sources nearby.
Quote from: rantanamoI-345 is much shorter than this. I drive I-345 many days per week depending on traffic. The complex is simply more complicated than it needs to be and does nothing to relieve the actual traffic issue in that part of Dallas which is drivers skipping I-345 and driving through the streets of Old East Dallas to reach I-30. I truly believe a bypass from Central to I-30 that lands cars further east would be far more effect than I-345 itself.
I-345 is not just about connecting to I-30. It's also about connecting to I-45. Redirecting that freeway segment from the Woodwall Rodgers Freeway interchange and going North of Deep Ellum to a point farther East on I-30 would cut the benefit of that freeway connection in half. And it would require a new terrain path.
Tunnel boring is still a very disruptive process, especially when going under a bunch of existing buildings. A lot of care must be taken to avoid affecting building foundations and utilities buried under ground. Your idea would cut underneath the Baylor University Medical Center complex. Plus you still have to buy up plenty of ROW for the various ramps going in and out of the tunnels.
A dug-out trench with or without a cap is a lot easier to engineer and build than a true tunnel.
Also, how is anyone taking a "short cut" from North Central Expressway to to I-30 East of Downtown Dallas by driving on the streets through Old East Dallas? That doesn't even make any sense. A motorist would need to get off of North Central fairly far North of downtown to get a good diagonal angle going Southeast down to I-30. We're talking the Henderson Avenue exit, taking that street to Munger Blvd and then driving on Munger the rest of the way to I-30. That's three miles and at least a dozen traffic signals. I would just as soon stay on North Central Expressway down to I-30.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 27, 2022, 05:19:04 PM
Quote from: rantanamoI live in East Dallas where they have now dug and are working on the Mill Creek drainage tunnel, which is five miles long and is lined with concrete with large and small intakes all across the length of the tunnel. The size of the tunnel is actually surprising (to me) . 30 feet wide and completely line with smooth concrete meaning wide enough for two lanes. This complete system is supposed to be $300 million.
A tunnel for drainage is extremely different from tunnels designed to carry vehicles or trains. Engineering standards, materials used, etc are all very different.
Currently, a single tunnel holding two lanes of roadway costs about $1 billion to $2.5 billion per mile to build. Double that cost for a dual roadway Interstate facility. The differences in cost depend on the location and complexity of issues faced in the tunnel boring project. Obviously urban areas like New York City will have the most difficult obstacles. There is already a lot of other stuff buried under ground and many very heavy buildings above ground. There are major water sources nearby.
Quote from: rantanamoI-345 is much shorter than this. I drive I-345 many days per week depending on traffic. The complex is simply more complicated than it needs to be and does nothing to relieve the actual traffic issue in that part of Dallas which is drivers skipping I-345 and driving through the streets of Old East Dallas to reach I-30. I truly believe a bypass from Central to I-30 that lands cars further east would be far more effect than I-345 itself.
I-345 is not just about connecting to I-30. It's also about connecting to I-45. Redirecting that freeway segment from the Woodwall Rodgers Freeway interchange and going North of Deep Ellum to a point farther East on I-30 would cut the benefit of that freeway connection in half. And it would require a new terrain path.
Tunnel boring is still a very disruptive process, especially when going under a bunch of existing buildings. A lot of care must be taken to avoid affecting building foundations and utilities buried under ground. Your idea would cut underneath the Baylor University Medical Center complex. Plus you still have to buy up plenty of ROW for the various ramps going in and out of the tunnels.
A dug-out trench with or without a cap is a lot easier to engineer and build than a true tunnel.
Also, how it anyone taking a "short cut" from North Central Expressway to to I-30 East of Downtown Dallas by driving on the streets through Old East Dallas? That doesn't even make any sense. A motorist would need to get off of North Central fairly far North of downtown to get a good diagonal angle going Southeast down to I-30. We're talking the Henderson Avenue exit, taking that street to Munger Blvd and then driving on Munger the rest of the way to I-30. That's three miles and at least a dozen traffic signals. I would just as soon stay on North Central Expressway down to I-30.
not to mention 345 may be converted to an extension of 45 up to the Oklahoma state line when TXDOT finishes the construction on 75 in the Sherman Denison area bringing it up to Interstate grade.
Quote from: motorola870 on May 31, 2022, 02:35:25 PM
not to mention 345 may be converted to an extension of 45 up to the Oklahoma state line when TXDOT finishes the construction on 75 in the Sherman Denison area bringing it up to Interstate grade.
Has there been any actual talk about this from people who have power? I think extending I-45 up to Tulsa should happen but I doubt they'd go through the process of extending I-45 if there's not a clear motive to do so in Oklahoma too. Makes more sense for 45 to end at a major city than a state line. I suppose this is all fantasy land too at this point but I was just curious if there has been any talk from legislators about making that happen.
Even if Interstate 45 is not extended northward, all exits along US 75 from Interstate 635 to the Oklahoma border should be renumbered to mileage-based (as should have been done when the portion from 345 to 635 was reconstructed and expanded.
Quote from: CerlinHas there been any actual talk about this from people who have power?
Nothing "official" is being discussed regarding extending the I-45 designation North of Downtown Dallas. However some segments of US-69/75 in Oklahoma are being improved to Interstate quality. Continued rapid growth of the DFW metroplex and heavy truck traffic on the US-69 corridor will force more and more limited access upgrades.
Just across the Red River construction on the US-69/75 Calera project is well underway. That will improve most of US-69/75 up to the US-70 interchange in Durant to Interstate quality. The project will help move traffic more efficiently going in and out of the Choctaw Casino & Resort. There will still be a few at grade intersections and driveways between Colbert and Calera. Those will be easier to remedy.
Significant improvement work on the George Nigh Expressway in McAlester is on-going. Just South of McAlester other improvements are planned on US-69 going by the US Army Ammunition Plant.
A freeway bypass around the West side of Muskogee has been proposed. But that's meeting a good bit of local resistance. The small towns of Atoka and Stringtown have blocked US-69/75 upgrade efforts there. Those towns will continue aging, shrinking and losing political influence over the long term. I think more and more of US-69 from the Red River up to Big Cabin will be converted to limited access
with or without an Interstate highway label.
US-75 South of Tulsa is going to get improvements in the Glenpool area. A freeway bypass was proposed for the West side of Olkmulgee. Some local businesses don't like the idea, but another local businessman said they were short-sighted and "taking the yellow brick road to extinction" by trying to block the plan.
Summing it up, again nothing official is going on to bring I-45 into Oklahoma. But US-75 and US-69 are on long term paths to become super highway corridors.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 01, 2022, 11:46:48 PM
Summing it up, again nothing official is going on to bring I-45 into Oklahoma. But US-75 and US-69 are on long term paths to become super highway corridors.
Good, as it should be. Thanks for the updates!
Also, it has been noted in local media in Sherman that officials there want to pursue interstate status once work on US 75 there is complete.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 01, 2022, 10:06:02 PM
Even if Interstate 45 is not extended northward, all exits along US 75 from Interstate 635 to the Oklahoma border should be renumbered to mileage-based (as should have been done when the portion from 345 to 635 was reconstructed and expanded.
Starting with Exit 1, or Exit 286 (which presumes an extension of IH-45 northward)?
TxDOT recently had a meeting to solicit a consultant for the environmental and schematic phase of the I-345 project.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/090922/presentation.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/090922/presentation.pdf)
Page 16 shows the timeline. The environmental and schematic phase is slated for 2023-2026. With the following preconstruction phases taking another 3 years, this means the earliest possible construction start would be around 2030. With the usual funding constraints and other delays, the mid 2030s is probably the most likely start for construction, assuming the process can maintain steady progress without any holdups (like Houston's NHHIP).
Work on I-30 in downtown Dallas is slated to proceed first. This includes the approx. $500 million rebuild of the "Canyon", slated for bidding in Feb. 2025, and the rebuild/lowering of the elevated structure east of I-45, which is not yet funded or scheduled.
Well, at least they didn't choose the removal option. I wonder if the hybrid alternative will come with caps along the route.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 17, 2022, 05:27:07 PM
Well, at least they didn't choose the removal option. I wonder if the hybrid alternative will come with caps along the route.
TxDOT was playing chess while the 345 removal advocates were playing Hungry Hungry Hippos.
Quote from: I-35 on June 03, 2022, 02:38:13 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 01, 2022, 10:06:02 PM
Even if Interstate 45 is not extended northward, all exits along US 75 from Interstate 635 to the Oklahoma border should be renumbered to mileage-based (as should have been done when the portion from 345 to 635 was reconstructed and expanded.
Starting with Exit 1, or Exit 286 (which presumes an extension of IH-45 northward)?
If TxDOT is interested in trolling Oklahoma, they would use the I-45 mileage for new exit numbers. I figured out that Campbell Road would be Exit 300.
Quote from: Road Hog on October 14, 2022, 02:34:39 AM
Quote from: I-35 on June 03, 2022, 02:38:13 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 01, 2022, 10:06:02 PM
Even if Interstate 45 is not extended northward, all exits along US 75 from Interstate 635 to the Oklahoma border should be renumbered to mileage-based (as should have been done when the portion from 345 to 635 was reconstructed and expanded.
Starting with Exit 1, or Exit 286 (which presumes an extension of IH-45 northward)?
If TxDOT is interested in trolling Oklahoma, they would use the I-45 mileage for new exit numbers. I figured out that Campbell Road would be Exit 300.
If it remains US-75 and numbers would change, it would be a system worse than the sequential system they use now. It would change to the grid system Texas uses. That system is really vexing for the uninitiated.
The Final Feasibility Report on I-345 has been posted. (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/dal/i-345/2022-08-22-i345-feasibility-report-final.pdf) It can also be found on this page. (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/dallas/i345-feasability-11-15-19.html)
The plan is set. The discussion is done. Now the work (engineering) is ready to get started.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/dallas/i345-feasability-11-15-19.html
3 lanes each direction. No frontage roads. No HOV. Subterranean with the future possibility of locally funded caps. Streets would cross OVER at ground level.
3 lanes each way doesn't seem like enough it should have been at least 5 lanes.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 19, 2022, 03:05:59 PM
3 lanes each way doesn't seem like enough it should have been at least 5 lanes.
The schematic shows 5 lanes each way in the center part of the section, where there are no traffic lanes on ramps to/from I-30 and SP 366 (Woodall Rodgers).
It is correct that there are 3 main lanes each way across I-30 and Spur 366. But of course there are four traffic lanes on connection ramps adjacent to the interchanges.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 19, 2022, 03:05:59 PM
3 lanes each way doesn't seem like enough it should have been at least 5 lanes.
Quote from: bwana39 on October 19, 2022, 02:57:33 PM
The plan is set. The discussion is done. Now the work (engineering) is ready to get started.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/dallas/i345-feasability-11-15-19.html
3 lanes each direction. No frontage roads. No HOV. Subterranean with the future possibility of locally funder caps. Streets would cross OVER at ground level.
(https://i.imgur.com/bfkzajT.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/yfyhnUB.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/gDakBXI.png)
On a freeway like this, you can't really pin down the number of general purpose lanes since lanes diverge and join with ramps and some act as de-facto auxiliary lanes but it looks like at its widest it will have 10 lanes and it will have 6 lanes at minimum passing through interchanges which is the same as it is now.
(https://i.imgur.com/A0vF0KG.png)
Wednesday 5 PM Traffic
(https://i.imgur.com/eK0QhI9.png)
Wednesday 8 AM Traffic
And as we can see from these photos, I-345 itself isn't a bottleneck, the current limits on freeway capacity are I-30 to the South and US 75 to the North, so adding lanes to I-345 won't help.
^
Nice analysis, kernals12. Thanks.
It looks like the best of both worlds, gets the freeway out of sight but keeps about the same level of throughput as now. At least the insane idea to replace it with a surface boulevard is gone, though I suspect the anti-freeway crowd won't be happy.
Quote from: skluth on October 19, 2022, 04:22:41 PM
^
Nice analysis, kernals12. Thanks.
It looks like the best of both worlds, gets the freeway out of sight but keeps about the same level of throughput as now. At least the insane idea to replace it with a surface boulevard is gone, though I suspect the anti-freeway crowd won't be happy.
This alternative was agreed upon by the anti-freeway folks. It seems as good as it is going to get to them. This said, there is a lot of political churn that can come up in the 5-8 years before dirt starts to turn.
Well, at least they didn't go with the removal alternative. The hybrid alternative looks interesting, and is likely the best solution for the corridor.
Quote from: bwana39 on October 19, 2022, 05:02:59 PM
This alternative was agreed upon by the anti-freeway folks. It seems as good as it is going to get to them. This said, there is a lot of political churn that can come up in the 5-8 years before dirt starts to turn.
The anti-freeway folks are already trying to undo the recommendation. It isn't clear if they have much influence. Probably not. For now, I think the process will move forward. But as bwana39 says, the long planning period gives plenty of time for the political climate to become unfavorable. Exhibit A: Houston's NHHIP.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2022/10/19/some-on-dallas-council-uneasy-over-plan-to-lower-i-345-and-want-to-see-it-gone/ (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2022/10/19/some-on-dallas-council-uneasy-over-plan-to-lower-i-345-and-want-to-see-it-gone/)
I never got why I-45 suddenly transitions to I-345. I mean, they're both the same road, so why just end the designation at I-30 and let it continue as US 75 only, with no additional highway numbers? That's what everyone calls it anyway, so it shouldn't matter. OTOH, the boulevard plans will complicate future extension aspirations for I-45 if they ever come to light, because nobody is going to swing around the west side of downtown just to make a nonstop trip to points north. After the mess in Houston, I too am fearful that the same will happen here.
^ I believe that's how it's signed (with I-345 being hidden), but since I-345 is a chargeable interstate, they needed some number for it back when that meant more than it does now; they must have decided to end I-45 at I-30 rather than continue that designation a little bit further north.
Quote from: vdeane on October 20, 2022, 12:58:54 PM
I believe that's how it's signed (with I-345 being hidden), but since I-345 is a chargeable interstate, they needed some number for it back when that meant more than it does now; they must have decided to end I-45 at I-30 rather than continue that designation a little bit further north.
And if a route's number is unsigned, then the particular number doesn't really matter.
Quote from: vdeane on October 20, 2022, 12:58:54 PM
^ I believe that's how it's signed (with I-345 being hidden), but since I-345 is a chargeable interstate, they needed some number for it back when that meant more than it does now; they must have decided to end I-45 at I-30 rather than continue that designation a little bit further north.
Yep, it has a hidden interstate designation for the same reason other hidden interstate designations exist: funding.
Only nitpick in this statement is that it would be more historically accurate to say they decided to end I-45 at I-
20, since that is what the RL Thornton Freeway was designated as at the time. The westward extension of I-30 and relocation southward of I-20 came later.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 19, 2022, 03:05:59 PM
3 lanes each way doesn’t seem like enough it should have been at least 5 lanes.
It isn't. The point is there is
no additional right of way required. Yes there are places that will have acceleration and exit lanes, but all-in-all it is a 3x3 facility.
To ME the only way this is much better than what they have now (except for condition) is if they put caps on virtually all of it. The most recent cap letting on Woodall Rogers tells us that is more expensive than is generally feasible.
As to the tunnel arguments, when / if you cap it, it is nothing but a cut and cover tunnel with emerging ramps. It is somewhat less expensive than a bored tunnel, but still as a rule cost prohibitive. Building the recessed roadway and capping it later does one thing. It passes the cost of the cover to local entities as opposed to TXDOT.
By the way, the recessed roadway will have fewer access points from downtown to Deep Ellum / east Dallas than the existing elevated freeway.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/05/24/i-345-decision-dallas-approves-txdot-recommendation-to-remodel-interstate/
The Dallas city council voted 14-0 to approve TxDOTs recommended plan for putting I-345 in a trench.
Is rebuilding the I-30 stack included in the plan?
Quote from: longhorn on May 24, 2023, 03:56:26 PM
Is rebuilding the I-30 stack included in the plan?
Yes.
The planned design has ramps on the upper levels, instead of having I-345 on the upper level.
Quote from: Chris on May 24, 2023, 02:34:33 PM
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/05/24/i-345-decision-dallas-approves-txdot-recommendation-to-remodel-interstate/
The Dallas city council voted 14-0 to approve TxDOTs recommended plan for putting I-345 in a trench.
I think it is a win / win until the construction actually starts. It accomplishes two things. 1) It gets rid of the elevated that the urbanists so badly want gone. 2) It retains a through freeway from I-30 to Woodall Rogers.
When the construction starts, the chaos is going to rule downtown for from 6-8 years. If the caps actually get built, it will actually accomplish the best compromise for all concerned. If the caps fail to come to fruition, East Dallas will be MORE divided. If the caps don't get built what you will have is equivalent to the canyon on I-30. Right now most of the downtown streets have direct connection to Deep Ellum and East Dallas EXCEPT where DART facilities block it. Ironically the division that everyone talks about is truly more about the Dart tracks than Central Expy.
After this fewer direct connections will exist. There is one thing getting rid of elevated freeways, They don't benefit the poor. When the elevated freeways go, there are fewer places for the homeless to camp / live. It will look a whole lot cleaner and seemingly safer when the homeless go away. Is that the whole point?
Don't forget dallas is also doing what austin can't do which build a subway(even though dallas technically has a LRT underground segment).
Construction would be sped up if they simply shut down i-345 entirely, built the trench and ramps, then opened it up again. But, it would make downtown Dallas traffic even more miserable, and I've mentioned my dislike towards I-30 between I-35E and US-75 as well as TX-366 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33208.msg2838749#msg2838749) already.
Quote from: ZLoth on May 25, 2023, 08:17:57 AM
Construction would be sped up if they simply shut down i-345 entirely, built the trench and ramps, then opened it up again. But, it would make downtown Dallas traffic even more miserable, and I've mentioned my dislike towards I-30 between I-35E and US-75 as well as TX-366 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33208.msg2838749#msg2838749) already.
So you hate the freeway-in-a-trench? I-345 or whatever you want to call it, is going to be just like it after it is finished.
I think putting 345 in a trench is better than leaving it an elevated highway (or demolishing it altogether). I would also suggest that all on and off ramps on the left-hand side should be moved to the right-hand side. If 345 has to be completely closed during construction, so be it (maybe that would make motorists realize the fallacy of getting rid of 345). I totally agree with capping the new 345 trench, and building something like the Klyde Warren Park that exists over 366.
Quote from: bwana39 on May 25, 2023, 10:49:41 AM
Quote from: ZLoth on May 25, 2023, 08:17:57 AM
Construction would be sped up if they simply shut down i-345 entirely, built the trench and ramps, then opened it up again. But, it would make downtown Dallas traffic even more miserable, and I've mentioned my dislike towards I-30 between I-35E and US-75 as well as TX-366 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33208.msg2838749#msg2838749) already.
So you hate the freeway-in-a-trench? I-345 or whatever you want to call it, is going to be just like it after it is finished.
Nope. I-5 has a "boat section (https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/outreach/why-guy/why-guy-why-is-a-section-of-i-5-is-called-the-boat-section/103-602796761)" which I have traveled very often. The question is just how quickly can construction be completed. It just feels that every construction project is a five year project because you still have to keep traffic flowing around the construction areas.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 25, 2023, 11:30:20 AM
I think putting 345 in a trench is better than leaving it an elevated highway (or demolishing it altogether). I would also suggest that all on and off ramps on the left-hand side should be moved to the right-hand side. If 345 has to be completely closed during construction, so be it (maybe that would make motorists realize the fallacy of getting rid of 345). I totally agree with capping the new 345 trench, and building something like the Klyde Warren Park that exists over 366.
There are about 15 hard-core and vocal urbanists who believe that there should be no freeway at all here. Everyone else pretty much understands that it is needed.
The Whole dilemma about I-345 and the Pierce elevated in Houston is about the life span of the elevated sections. Both were initially designed with an approximately 50-year service life. While they underestimated the real service life, replacement of both is still needed in the next 15-20 years or less. The overall capacity is not being significantly expanded in either case with the proposed replacements.
From WFAA:
50 years later, Bonehead Club gets victory on I-345
A 1972 WFAA story from the SMU Jones Film Library shows the group playing horseshoes and hopscotch on I-345 as it was still under construction.QuoteMore than 50 years earlier, the Bonehead Club of Dallas protested the construction of I-345 in their typically unique and humorous way. A 1972 WFAA story from the SMU Jones Film Library shows the group playing horseshoes and hopscotch on I-345 as it was still under construction. It was their way of making a point about a city park being destroyed to make space for the highway.
FULL ARTICLE HERE (https://markholtz.info/2qy)
Here is a new twist to all of this... It really doesn't affect I-45 much if at all, but some of the biggest engineering issues are removed,
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/dallas-dart-d2-subway-project-cut-agencys-financial-plan/287-f1be7fa4-7968-4247-a588-21694ed19611
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/cheaper-alternative-plans-to-expensive-dallas-d-2-subway-possible/3318214/
To drive home a point.Deep Ellum as we know it will not exist past the 2020's and may be entirely gone by 2035.
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/century-old-deep-ellum-building-apartment-tower/287-c13bae21-57c3-459b-bb46-9ed0b306b472
Email I just received from Texas DOT
QuoteThank you for your interest in the Texas Department of Transportation's I-345 Connects project.
TxDOT will be hosting upcoming public meetings (both in-person and online) to provide updates on the project and receive feedback.
The in-person public meetings will be held March 19 & 21, 2024 from 5:30-7:30 p.m. Please see attached notices and flyers (English & Spanish) for additional details.
We will also post all materials online at www.345connects.com for the public to view at their convenience.
I believe the environmental assessment for reconstructing Interstate 345 will be completed next spring. Then we'll have to see how long it takes before construction begins. Hopefully, it happens by 2030, since I'm sure there are still people who want the elevated highway to go (even if it is replaced by a capped below-grade freeway).
A handful of news articles and a price estimate 60% higher than the previous estimate.
https://www.keranews.org/news/2024-03-07/estimated-cost-of-i-345-plan-rises-to-over-1-6-billion-while-dallas-officials-call-for-more-review
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/txdots-cost-to-tear-down-i-345-grows-to-1-6b-and-some-dallas-city-council-members-want-more-options-on-design/3483214/
https://candysdirt.com/2024/03/08/despite-council-mandate-city-staff-didnt-seek-alternative-funding-sources-designs-for-interstate-345/
For some, total demolition of a roadway is the only acceptable option. I'd prefer 345 to be put in a trench rather than completely demolished, since I think 345 is a needed connection in the Dallas freeway system. Trenching the freeway and capping it could make the freeway seem like less of a barrier to the surrounding neighborhood, although some would never see it that way.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 09, 2024, 05:42:33 PM
For some, total demolition of a roadway is the only acceptable option. I'd prefer 345 to be put in a trench rather than completely demolished, since I think 345 is a needed connection in the Dallas freeway system. Trenching the freeway and capping it could make the freeway seem like less of a barrier to the surrounding neighborhood, although some would never see it that way.
If they TOTALLY cap it,it might achieve what they want. The proposal will seemingly have a bigger barrier than the existing road.
What is proposed (and admittedly MIGHT be capped separately) Is almost exact to Central in the SMU area without the cantilevered frontage roads. Add to that tall barriers at ground level to buffer the noise. It is all buzzwords adn butterflies
I don't think they necessarily need to totally cap the I-345 trench. One or more deck parks would be nice. But really the main thing is preserving pedestrian and bicycle access at any surface streets that cross the trench. They can add decorative features to visibly hide the highway from surface traffic if they like. As long as the sidewalks and bike paths extend over the freeway it should be all good.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 10, 2024, 01:15:29 AM
I don't think they necessarily need to totally cap the I-345 trench. One or more deck parks would be nice. But really the main thing is preserving pedestrian and bicycle access at any surface streets that cross the trench. They can add decorative features to visibly hide the highway from surface traffic if they like. As long as the sidewalks and bike paths extend over the freeway it should be all good.
The irony is, the current elevated freeway has better pedestrian and bicycle access than the proposed tunnelish will even if it is ALL capped.
The areas underneath the current elevated I-345 freeway are fenced off in many places between streets. Pedestrians are having to cross under the highway using sidewalks along surface streets. If anything, people on foot might have more ways to cross over the trenched freeway if any deck parks are built. Otherwise their access crossing over the freeway is going to be about the same. But they'll at least see open air or daylight crossing above the freeway. It should be safer from a standpoint of crime avoidance.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 10, 2024, 08:02:06 PM
The areas underneath the current elevated I-345 freeway are fenced off in many places between streets. Pedestrians are having to cross under the highway using sidewalks along surface streets. If anything, people on foot might have more ways to cross over the trenched freeway if any deck parks are built. Otherwise their access crossing over the freeway is going to be about the same. But they'll at least see open air or daylight crossing above the freeway. It should be safer from a standpoint of crime avoidance.
You need to look again and think again! You are probably thinking about US-59 / I-69 in HOUSTON. WHile it is not pedestrian friendly, there are no fences. There are often ramps onto and off of the freeway that block pedestrians.
By crime avoidance, I assume we are talking about HOMELESS avoidance.
BTW. Most of the crime is
IN Deep Ellum NOT between it and downtown. I will agree with you, the crime will probably be gone when the elevated is gone, because Deep Ellum will be mostly if not completely gone by then.
The one thing I am absolutely certain of is that this $2B project without caps will be no more (probably less) pedestrian and cyclist friendly than what is there. Even with the caps, best case is it shifts the flavor of the day from Woodall Rodgers to this one and the north side of downtown will be in the decay mode.
There has been a trenched freeway on the south side of downtown for decades. That is where the real division exists. Almost all the cross streets cross the freeway. Most of them have good sidewalks across. This is not the panacea some would suggest it is. I am not even convinced that the social capital is anywhere even close to the fiscal capital it is going to cost more than the lesser expensive alternatives (and I am not suggesting no-build or walkable boulevard. )
Quote from: bwanaYou need to look again and think again! You are probably thinking about US-59 / I-69 in HOUSTON. WHile it is not pedestrian friendly, there are no fences. There are often ramps onto and off of the freeway that block pedestrians.
What do you call this?
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7810541,-96.7836843,3a,75y,142.24h,91.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG1MYf4v0Bn9MTMqRoHglAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttuOr this?
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7816337,-96.7843643,3a,75y,234.36h,98.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv7lH_wCWVaDk5iNli8Qy7A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttuOr this?
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7829535,-96.7881026,3a,75y,122.97h,77.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQ-K5tF6cs_WbBEMIHjmf3g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttuThere is a lot of fences and other obstacles for crossing under the existing elevated I-345 freeway. I've seen it for myself in person. Most people on foot (or on a bike) will be crossing alongside surface streets.
Quote from: bwanaBy crime avoidance, I assume we are talking about HOMELESS avoidance.
Yeah, that would be part of it. But pedestrian and bicycle crossings that are going over the top of a freeway will be easier to monitor with surveillance cameras and other tools. And, yeah, there won't be any places for homeless people to set up encampments. I do not have a cold heart towards unhoused people. Real substantial, compassionate things need to be done to help those in need. I don't think it is acceptable to just treat those people as human trash and forget them in places like the undersides of highway overpasses.
I agree fully that we need a better cohesive plan to deal with our poverty problems especially the homeless. My point is that getting rid of the area beneath the elevated bridges does nothing to fix the problem of homelessness, it just moves the problem to somewhere else.
Back to the fences. I am going to concede I started at the northern reaches of the proposed project at Woodall Rodgers. Between SS-366 and Elm Street,there are no fences. I really didn't dig very hard south of there. South of Main, you are correct there are fences.
I went and looked at Klyde Warren Park. Within the streets / frontage roads it is indeed walkable. It has virtually zero access except at the cross streets from either downtown or midtown. I will agree, with the caps, it is a more inviting space.
The proposed trench east of downtown if it is capped, will be better than what is there. Hopefully, $1,500,000,000 or more better.
WHile the sidewalks under the freeway could be better, EVERY cross street currently is connected under I-345 / US-75 elevated. It doesn't seem to be the case with the proposal.
:pan: Hey Guys meeting materials for the I 345 Meeting March 19 were recently uploaded a few minutes ago.
https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/interstate-highways/i345
I just saw the YouTube clips of the project, and it is one of the best presentations I've ever seen!
If the highway is built as depicted in the YouTube video there will be plenty of access for pedestrians to cross over the highway. It looks like every street crossing over the trenched freeway will have protected sidewalks for pedestrians and even a good bit of dedicated bicycle paths. The street crossings are spaced fairly close together too. Any added deck parks will just sweeten the deal for walk-ability.
The only downside is pedestrian/bike access across the I-345 corridor may be greatly limited during the construction process. The finished product looks like it will be worth the few years of pain.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 22, 2024, 01:24:30 PM
If the highway is built as depicted in the YouTube video there will be plenty of access for pedestrians to cross over the highway. It looks like every street crossing over the trenched freeway will have protected sidewalks for pedestrians and even a good bit of dedicated bicycle paths. The street crossings are spaced fairly close together too. Any added deck parks will just sweeten the deal for walk-ability.
The only downside is pedestrian/bike access across the I-345 corridor may be greatly limited during the construction process. The finished product looks like it will be worth the few years of pain.
Don't forget those 11' sound curtains at ground level!
It kind of reminds me of US-75 from Downtown to Loop 12. Its very interesting how there are traffic signal intersections of the city streets built on top of the freeway.
Also I noticed how there are 2 ramps connecting Woodall Rogers Freeway (SH-366) to I-345 southbound. One of them immediately connects to the right lanes of I-345 and has access to both I-30 ramps from southbound I-345. The other lane comes in to the left of the I-345 mainlanes and is separated by barriers until after the I-30 exit ramps. Is this meant for traffic coming off of SH-366 that wants to bypass any traffic built up from the I-30 interchange?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 22, 2024, 01:24:30 PM
If the highway is built as depicted in the YouTube video there will be plenty of access for pedestrians to cross over the highway. It looks like every street crossing over the trenched freeway will have protected sidewalks for pedestrians and even a good bit of dedicated bicycle paths. The street crossings are spaced fairly close together too. Any added deck parks will just sweeten the deal for walk-ability.
The only downside is pedestrian/bike access across the I-345 corridor may be greatly limited during the construction process. The finished product looks like it will be worth the few years of pain.
And not only that, but if some deep pocketed philanthropist came through, who had interest in doing this, they could completely cap off those sections and create and effective tunnel. Wouldn't be cheap but I'm sure if this mystery person put up enough money the city probably would pitch as well.
While it is mostly behind a paywall, here is news on paying for the caps.
https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2024/03/13/feds-grant-80m-for-highway-caps-north-texas.html
Quote from: BJ59It kind of reminds me of US-75 from Downtown to Loop 12.Quote
This re-build of I-345 will only be similar to North Central Expressway by being built down in a trench. The bridge crossings between downtown and Deep Ellum will be more densely packed and more complex in design. That's without factoring in possible caps in one or more places. It should be a pretty interesting looking highway design once it is finished.
One thing the YouTube video does not show is possible "green-scape" enhancements -bushes, trees and other landscaping features to partially hide the freeway from the upper street level. The depressed South section of North Central Expressway doesn't have much in the way of landscaping features on its overhead street crossings. But the expansion of North Central started back in the early 1990's and was completed 25 years ago. Some highway design trends have changed a bit during the years since.