Dallas: I-345

[BJ59]

Would it have been better if Interstate 345 had been constructed as a depressed freeway to begin with? After all, US 75 north of TX Spur 366 is a depressed freeway up to Exit 6.

US 75 wasn't initially built as a depressed freeway. By the time US 75 was reconstructed into its current configuration in the 90's, the elevated I-345 Expressway had already been there for 20+ years.

[bwana39]

The new surface street bridges over the new trenched highway will have far more sunlight. Sight lines will be far better for both vehicles and pedestrians. The new sidewalks will be wider and more modern in design. I don't know if TX DOT or Dallas city officials are planning any aesthetic enhancements to the bridges, such as adding any green landscaping or structures to hide the depressed freeway from view. Ultimately the end result is going to look a hell of a lot better and may do more to invigorate the Deep Ellum neighborhood.

I will practically guarantee ALLthe existing buildings in Deep Ellum will be torn down and replaced within ten years of the freeway replacement.

I pointed out the sidewalks would have to be replaced to modernize what is there.

The noise barriers (11' tall) will box in the surface level crossings to rival if not exceed the current dark / dank environs.

The first twenty years of SS-366 before the caps it was pretty foreboding. The elevated portion on the western end was  far more open and inviting than the recessed. Oh yes and the I-30 canyon is really pedestrian friendly and walkable. How much foot traffic crosses US-75 except around SMU?

[Road Hog]

Please forgive my ignorance, but why is this called I-345, and not I-45? This is not a spur off a 2DI -- it is a continuation.

Also, US-75 should be converted to I-45 atleast through McKinney, if not to the OK state line (making it a true "interstate").

Back in the 1960's the thought was that I-45 would follow I-30 to TX-114 to US-287 and US-287 to at least I-44 or perhaps even I-40 in Amarillo. In the 2020's we see I-345 clearly as a continuation of I-45, at he time it was just a spur bridging I-30 ( the then and current technical end of I-45) to the freeway portion of Central Expressway (US-75) north of downtown Dallas.

Not disparaging what you said in the least, because things were different in the 1960s, much less the 1980s or 1990s.

But US 75 has been a complete freeway in Texas up to the Red River since the 1990s and is a logical (and frankly easy) extension of I-45. Improvements have been painfully slow but incremental and it's come into fruition in the Sherman-Denison area.

TxDO'H has drug its feet on US 287 from the get-go and has forfeited its claim on 287 as an I-45 future route. 287 from Ennis to Amarillo (and north) is deserving of its own 2di status.

[The Ghostbuster]

An Interstate 32 designation has been suggested for the US 287 corridor if it were ever upgraded to Interstate Standards. Whether or not that will ever come into fruition is anyone's guess.

[74/171FAN]

I received an email noting that the next public meetings for I-345 will be later this month.

The I-345 Connects public hearing materials will be available starting at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, April 22.

To view the public meeting materials, click HERE

[05danper42842]

An Interstate 32 designation has been suggested for the US 287 corridor if it were ever upgraded to Interstate Standards. Whether or not that will ever come into fruition is anyone's guess.

There are plans and meetings in place for the future of US 287 and possible Interstate designations along the corridor such as near Beaumont Texas and DFW.

[Bobby5280]

A DFW-Beaumont Interstate isn't the thing along US-287 most urgently needed. Fort Worth-Amarillo should be the top priority, starting with the segment from Fort Worth thru Decatur. An Interstate from Dallas to Beaumont would mostly be a duplication of I-45 efforts.

[bwana39]

A DFW-Beaumont Interstate isn't the thing along US-287 most urgently needed. Fort Worth-Amarillo should be the top priority, starting with the segment from Fort Worth thru Decatur. An Interstate from Dallas to Beaumont would mostly be a duplication of I-45 efforts.

Freeway grade at least. It should go from Amarillo to Ennis. The Fort Worth to Ennis part is seemingly in the works.

[Bobby5280]

Yeah, they're slowly chipping away at upgrading the US-287 corridor between I-20 and I-45. I don't expect much more to happen with the non-freeway 4-lane zones around Midlothian and Waxahachie until the big I-20/I-820/US-287 interchange project is completed.

[TXtoNJ]

Please forgive my ignorance, but why is this called I-345, and not I-45? This is not a spur off a 2DI -- it is a continuation.

Also, US-75 should be converted to I-45 atleast through McKinney, if not to the OK state line (making it a true "interstate").

Until the replacement discussions only the MOST ardent road geek knew anything about I-345. It was labeled as US-75 or as To I-45 SB and as to US-75 NB. There still are no I-345 signs. 

Back in the 1960's the thought was that I-45 would follow I-30 to TX-114 to US-287 and US-287 to at least I-44 or perhaps even I-40 in Amarillo. In the 2020's we see I-345 clearly as a continuation of I-45, at he time it was just a spur bridging I-30 ( the then and current technical end of I-45) to the freeway portion of Central Expressway (US-75) north of downtown Dallas.

Why the hidden I-345 designation. Back then, there were funds designated for INTERSTATE highway funding exclusively. As an Interstate funded highway, it had to have an Interstate Highway number. so it was technically I-345 even though there was no marking whatsoever. It was marked as (only) US-75 to avoid any confusion as there was at that point a US-75 concurrency for the entirety of I-45.

There was also a preference that all the 2 digit interstates begin and end at another interstate. This has not come to pass, but in the 1960's it was the goal

I had never heard that before, but it makes a lot more sense than concepts that go up 75. Especially if the concept were a NORAD-Pantex-Sheppard AFB-Lockheed-NASA/Ellington/Port of Houston route that became obviated once bombers were phased out in favor of ICBMs in the late '60s.

[The Ghostbuster]

In some parallels in the history of the Interstate System, believe the segment of Interstate 79 north of Interstate 90 northward into Erie was originally to have been numbered Interstate 179: https://www.pahighways.com/interstates/pdi.html#I179. The Interstate 72 extension along US 36 west of Springfield, IL was originally approved in 1991 as Interstate 172: https://www.aaroads.com/interstate-guide/i-072/#history. That would have been confusing, so it was renumbered to a more logical extension of Interstate 72, and the 172 designation was shifted to the 19-mile freeway segment of IL 336. Also, when Interstate 26 was originally extended north from Asheville, NC in 2003, the remainder of Interstate 181 was originally to be renumbered Interstate 126. However, it became part of Interstate 26 in 2007, as it should have been to begin with.

[MaxConcrete]

I reviewed the new schematic presented at the April meeting. There are substantial design changes between the new April 2025 schematic and the prior March 2024 schematic, all for a much better design.

March 2024 schematic
April 2025 schematic

In the northbound direction, there is now a long, grade-separated (freeway-level) exit ramp from I-30 to Elm Street.

Cesar Chavez is no longer above the main lanes. It is integrated into the frontage roads north of the freeway intersection.

The intersections above the main lanes in the area from Live Oak to Hawkins are gone. These are now done with the frontage roads.

There is now a northbound frontage road (one lane) from Pacific to north of Swiss, where it joins the new frontage road formed by the northbound lanes of Cesar Chavez.

The strange connector street on top of the freeway from Commerce to Main is gone. This connector is shifted west of the freeway, and now extends from Commerce to Elm.

Connection ramp positions are shifted at I-30.

The I-45 main lanes south of I-30 are now in a trench under Hickory, Dawson and Louise Streets. (Currently the freeway is elevated, and the 2024 plan was elevated.)

The connection ramp from northbound I-345 to westbound Woodall Rodgers is now fully replaced, instead of being about half replaced.

Allen Street is brought under Woodall Rodgers, one lane only.

[bwana39]

The new surface street bridges over the new trenched highway will have far more sunlight. Sight lines will be far better for both vehicles and pedestrians. The new sidewalks will be wider and more modern in design. I don't know if TX DOT or Dallas city officials are planning any aesthetic enhancements to the bridges, such as adding any green landscaping or structures to hide the depressed freeway from view. Ultimately the end result is going to look a hell of a lot better and may do more to invigorate the Deep Ellum neighborhood.

I will practically guarantee ALLthe existing buildings in Deep Ellum will be torn down and replaced within ten years of the freeway replacement.

I pointed out the sidewalks would have to be replaced to modernize what is there.

The noise barriers (11' tall) will box in the surface level crossings to rival if not exceed the current dark / dank environs.

The first twenty years of SS-366 before the caps it was pretty foreboding. The elevated portion on the western end was  far more open and inviting than the recessed. Oh yes and the I-30 canyon is really pedestrian friendly and walkable. How much foot traffic crosses US-75 except around SMU?

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/rodeo-dallas-owner-claims-real-estate-investment-firm-that-sued-trying-to-gentrify-deep-ellum/287-8b493b12-262f-4209-8ceb-3db39960d04c

See the intent to remake Deep Ellum has already begun (or at least that is one owner of a gritty club believes.)

[bwana39]

[Quote from: bwana39 on March 26, 2025, 12:10:10 AM]


I will practically guarantee ALL the existing buildings in Deep Ellum will be torn down and replaced within ten years of the freeway replacement.

Informal proposal to move city hall to deep ellum

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/ahead-of-another-dallas-city-hall-vote-here-is-where-the-relocation-could-land/287-a642f7cf-fb0c-41e5-ba5f-650070f905e3

[MaxConcrete]

Informal proposal to move city hall to deep ellum

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/ahead-of-another-dallas-city-hall-vote-here-is-where-the-relocation-could-land/287-a642f7cf-fb0c-41e5-ba5f-650070f905e3

The Dallas Business Journal has a more detailed report. I have a subscription, here's more info.

The Deep Ellum site is at 2500 Pacific, which is actually alongside I-345 which will of course be sunk below ground in the future. This building is relatively new compared to other options which were built in the 1970s and 1980s. I would think its recent construction is an advantage, but an analyst in the DBJ poo-poos it. I think this is a good site so I'm not ruling it out.

Another option that has been presented is not in the central business district but instead in Deep Ellum. Jeff Allen, executive vice president of the commercial division of Westdale Real Estate, said the Epic II tower is still being considered as a City Hall site.

DBJ reported in March that the city toured The Epic as it looked for possible new City Hall sites. Joe Beard, president and CEO of Dallas-based Westdale, said at the time that The Epic was a prime location for City Hall due to its amenity-rich environment, including numerous restaurants and entertainment options, while still being very close to downtown.

Triolet said while The Epic is newer, it is outside the CBD and there are "better options."

The leading candidates appear to be 2001 Bryan Street and 1717 Main Street.

Bryan Tower 2001 Bryan St.: This is a 1.1 million-square-foot, 40-story tower built in 1973. It is a plain, unattractive building. I don't know if it has been modernized, so it could require complete renovation. It appears that the owner is very motivated, which should provide a low price for either lease or purchase, which could be decisive.

Comerica Tower 1717 Main Street.: This is a 1.5 million-square-foot, 60-story, architecturally distinctive tower built in 1987. It has elegant entrances on two sides, appropriate for a city hall.

Other properties mentioned, but not verified to be in consideration are

Bank of America Plaza at 901 Main Street: This is a 1.9 million-square-foot, 72-story, architecturally distinctive tower built in 1985 known for its colorful, full-length lighting. This is perhaps the second most distinctive building in downtown Dallas, after Fountain Place.

Renaissance Tower at 1201 Elm Street: This is a 1.73 million-square-foot, 56-story, architecturally distinctive tower built in 1974 easily identified by its exterior X pattern and multiple roof spires.


My preference is Deep Ellum as the first choice, and Comerica second. I think the most financially attractive proposal will win. This will probably be Bryan Tower. However, if the cost to move to a new location is higher than expected, it is possible city hall will remain in the current building.

[Bobby5280]

What's going to happen to the current Dallas City Hall building if city hall operations relocate? It's a weird looking building, but it's kind of iconic. Whenever I see the building I always think of the movie "Robocop." The 1980's movie made the Dallas City Hall building double as the headquarters of the fictional Omni Consumer Products company (aka "OCP").

[MaxConcrete]

What's going to happen to the current Dallas City Hall building if city hall operations relocate? It's a weird looking building, but it's kind of iconic. Whenever I see the building I always think of the movie "Robocop." The 1980's movie made the Dallas City Hall building double as the headquarters of the fictional Omni Consumer Products company (aka "OCP").

If the City of Dallas decides to move city hall, the existing building will be demolished and the site will be available for redevelopment.

There has been plenty of controversy about potential demolition. Supporters want to preserve the building because of its unique architecture, but others think it is ugly and want to get rid it. Ultimately, I think it will be a financial decision, with the building's architecture not having much influence.

The city hall site was promoted as the location for a new Dallas Mavericks arena. If the Mavericks had chosen the city hall site, demolition was guaranteed. Now that the Mavericks have selected the Valley View Mall site in North Dallas, the decision could go either way, preserve or demolish. Repairing and modernizing the building will require a $769.8 million bond issue to be approved by voters.

The decision on whether to relocate or renovate City Hall has been divisive at council and in the community, with proponents of moving arguing that would open a prime site for new commercial activity while preservations worry about giving up an iconic building for private profit.

Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson said in a statement last week that the council's split decision to halt immediate repair plans saves taxpayers "hundreds of millions of dollars" and was a step toward "a vibrant new vision" for downtown. The council in a 12-hour June 10 meeting voted 9-6 to reject the repair-only option.

The council has received several briefings on cost estimates for repairs. The latest estimates released in early June pegged the costs for repairs at more than $530 million to more than $600 million over 10 years. Fully modernizing and continuing to operate the building for 20 more years could cost around $1.49 billion to $1.6 billion.

UPDATE 6/18/2026: Dallas City Council authorized 4 sites (not currently specified) to be considered. It isn't clear to me if the I-345 site is within the city's central business district, since Dallas has previously defined the CBD to be inside the freeway loop.

Dallas City Council voted June 17 to actively explore new locations to lease or buy for a relocated City Hall.

The measure passed 9-5 by the council directs City Manager Kimberly Bizor Tolbert to negotiate and execute pre-acquisition agreements for up to four sites that could be the home of a new City Hall. Tolbert will also bring forth as many as four sites for a new location for 911/311 services.

The agenda item specifically states that the locations be within the city's central business district.