Dallas: I-345

[rantanamo]

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. 

[Bobby5280]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[motorola870]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Cerlin]

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[Bobby5280]

Has 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.

[Cerlin]

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!

[-- US 175 --]

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.

[I-35]

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)?

[MaxConcrete]

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

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

Well, at least they didn't choose the removal option. I wonder if the hybrid alternative will come with caps along the route.

[kernals12]

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.

[Road Hog]

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.

[bwana39]

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.

[74/171FAN]

The Final Feasibility Report on I-345 has been posted.  It can also be found on this page.

[bwana39]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

3 lanes each way doesn't seem like enough it should have been at least 5 lanes.

[MaxConcrete]

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.

[kernals12]

3 lanes each way doesn't seem like enough it should have been at least 5 lanes.

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.

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.


Wednesday 5 PM Traffic


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.

[skluth]

^
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.

[bwana39]

^
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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[MaxConcrete]

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/

[Henry]

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.

[vdeane]

^ 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.