AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

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

Author Topic: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345  (Read 7408 times)

TheBox

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 30
  • Location: Houston, TX, United States
  • Last Login: July 29, 2021, 10:44:41 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #75 on: June 09, 2021, 12:41:42 AM »

Given sheer volumes, and national importance, Id say upgrading the US-69 corridor all the way to Big Cabin / I-44 and bypassing Tulsa would be a more viable project than turning at the Indian Nation Turnpike to head to Tulsa. Traffic will continue to go up US-69 regardless.
True. Then i guess we can make the Tulsa route I-145 (INT, to overriding I-244, to US-169) or something along those line, whiling the Big Cabin route (from Savanna, to overriding with I-44, back to US-69) can be the main I-45.
or maybe vice-versa.

they would both lead to Kansas City when done right (in the form of US-169 and US-69 respectively)
Logged

Finrod

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 312
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Atlanta GA
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 02:17:47 AM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #76 on: June 09, 2021, 01:16:13 AM »

Me, I want to see I-45 extended to northeast Oklahoma just so we can have another intersection of consecutively-numbered interstates.  IIRC the one with the smallest numbers intersecting is I-64-65 in Louisville; eventually there will be I-10-11 west of Phoenix but so far Arizona hasn't put a lot of work into building I-11.

Heck, if US 412 becomes I-46, then we could have I-44-45-46.
Logged
Internet member since 1987.

Hate speech is a nonsense concept; the truth is hate speech to those that hate the truth.

People who use their free speech to try to silence others' free speech are dangerous fools.

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 555
  • Safety > Danger ... Road Buffets > Road Diets

  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 07:57:17 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #77 on: June 09, 2021, 02:46:03 AM »

Quote
More than 180,000 vehicles use the 1.4-mile roadway every day.

That traffic is simply not going to go away and drive elsewhere. The traffic level increases every minute; There is even more than 180,000 vehicles per day.


That video shows that The Necessary Superhighway needs to be widened and including improved interchanges are needed.

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

There is numerous traffic that has come to a halt. Remove the few upgrades to The Necessary Superhighway and traffic would be stuck for ever on surface roads. Their desired Boulevards currently exist. and in some areas a road parallels The Necessary Superhighway. It has too much traffic all ready.

Numerous rail road crossings would need to be addressed. Are they really going to want people to be stopped by trains?!

I can not stand for even the title of that Article. There are no residential areas that are disadvantaged against The Necessary Superhighway. The Agenda Is Commercial.

Any space they think they are going to have for Commercial Properties by destroying The Necessary Superhighway will be nullified by one very wide yet ineffective boulevard system. Even the existing park space would need to go. The only way to keep them is to build Deck Parks.

Long Distance Commercial Vehicles might be able to eventually take alternate roads such as an Upgraded Loop 9. The rest of the traffic, including Commercial Vehicles servicing Dallas, will stay on the same path. Perhaps these facts can be presented to Commercial Vehicle Drivers so they can form a Brick Wall.

Also, another Brick Wall can be used to block off much of the space under of The Necessary Superhighway Bridge so that The Dangerous Urbanists will not be able to party. Traffic Cameras will protect the Brick Wall from The Dangerous Urbanists. Electric Fences are also important.

Another option is to attempt to make The Necessary Superhighway Bridge designated as Historical Landmark(s).
« Last Edit: June 09, 2021, 02:49:51 AM by In_Correct »
Logged
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 752
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: July 29, 2021, 05:03:53 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #78 on: June 09, 2021, 08:00:20 AM »

The first meetings for the I345 corridor are coming.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/dallas/111519.html

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/i30-i345-tore-dallas-neighborhoods-apart-can-the-damage-be-fixed/2652169/

You can comment. A comment as  simple as your comments on here will be helpful. I can assure you that the tear-down advocates will have a voice.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6656
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:16:29 AM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #79 on: June 09, 2021, 09:12:10 AM »

The first meetings for the I345 corridor are coming.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/dallas/111519.html

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/i30-i345-tore-dallas-neighborhoods-apart-can-the-damage-be-fixed/2652169/

You can comment. A comment as  simple as your comments on here will be helpful. I can assure you that the tear-down advocates will have a voice.
Yes, please. Every comment being posted on here is even more useful going to TxDOT directly themselves.
Logged

r15-1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 18
  • Last Login: July 21, 2021, 06:55:10 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #80 on: June 09, 2021, 10:17:17 AM »

It's likely that the 345 teardown advocates are, by a process of elimination, expecting through N-S traffic to detour around the city center/downtown by using the I-20/635 outer loop.  But that composite facility would have to be expanded to at least 5+5 (not counting frontage lanes) to be viable in that respect.   But commercial feasibility doesn't seem to figure into their process; they seem to envision the city center as a kind of "reservation" or even a "park" catering to people who don't have or don't want to utilize a personal vehicle (at least anything larger than a Vespa!) -- and who have limited use for basic commerce.  In short, an idealized living pattern, largely ignoring or compartmentalizing personal economic interest in favor of an approach that assumes communal interests -- at least as envisioned by the activists and their cohorts in the planning arena -- can and will override most if not all commercial concerns.  I just wonder if they regularly poll the folks who live and work in those areas to determine whether their concerns are echoed within that population, or are simply functioning as the loudest voice in the process, drowning out alternative viewpoints.

Nevertheless, if the concept of sinking & capping 345 has indeed been foiled by other subsurface facilities' plans, then the teardown advocates may well prevail by being the last plan standing, unless a "prettier" freeway-retaining surface solution is proffered instead.  Upthread a poster suggested simply extending I-45 to the TX/OK state line and daring the RE/T folks to sever it; it that can be arranged, it may not be such a terrible idea -- at least it negates the depiction of I-345 being a "useless spur".     
I-45 could be extended to US 380 in McKinney today. It is already up to interstate standards at least that far north because US 75 has been reconstructed in the last 30 years over that entire stretch. There is no reason to wait for improvements up to US 82 and farther north.
Logged

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 555
  • Safety > Danger ... Road Buffets > Road Diets

  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 07:57:17 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #81 on: June 09, 2021, 03:58:07 PM »

It's likely that the 345 teardown advocates are, by a process of elimination, expecting through N-S traffic to detour around the city center/downtown by using the I-20/635 outer loop.  But that composite facility would have to be expanded to at least 5+5 (not counting frontage lanes) to be viable in that respect.   But commercial feasibility doesn't seem to figure into their process; they seem to envision the city center as a kind of "reservation" or even a "park" catering to people who don't have or don't want to utilize a personal vehicle (at least anything larger than a Vespa!) -- and who have limited use for basic commerce.  In short, an idealized living pattern, largely ignoring or compartmentalizing personal economic interest in favor of an approach that assumes communal interests -- at least as envisioned by the activists and their cohorts in the planning arena -- can and will override most if not all commercial concerns.  I just wonder if they regularly poll the folks who live and work in those areas to determine whether their concerns are echoed within that population, or are simply functioning as the loudest voice in the process, drowning out alternative viewpoints.

Nevertheless, if the concept of sinking & capping 345 has indeed been foiled by other subsurface facilities' plans, then the teardown advocates may well prevail by being the last plan standing, unless a "prettier" freeway-retaining surface solution is proffered instead.  Upthread a poster suggested simply extending I-45 to the TX/OK state line and daring the RE/T folks to sever it; it that can be arranged, it may not be such a terrible idea -- at least it negates the depiction of I-345 being a "useless spur".     
I-45 could be extended to US 380 in McKinney today. It is already up to interstate standards at least that far north because US 75 has been reconstructed in the last 30 years over that entire stretch. There is no reason to wait for improvements up to US 82 and farther north.

I agree with this. I will try to send them my comments. If you want to I can also send them all of the other comments. And any body feel free to send them mine also.
Logged
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

nhoward45

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13
  • Location: Texas
  • Last Login: June 09, 2021, 08:08:51 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345 - my comments to TXDOT
« Reply #82 on: June 09, 2021, 07:41:23 PM »

It would be extremely foolish to knock down IH-345, replacing it with a street level boulevard, thus  creating a commuter nightmare.  It is discriminatory against lower income residents of South Dallas, and the southern suburbs as well, who have to drive to Central Dallas and points north, where the jobs are.   

Furthermore, US 75 and IH 45 are connected as a major north south thoroughfare.  Given the upgrades to US 75 south of LBJ Freeway, and improvements completed or under construction between Allen and the Sherman-Denison area, it would be better to renumber IH 345 and the entirety of US 75 to the state line as IH 45. Such a move would encourage Oklahoma to make needed improvements to US 69 and 75, thus providing an Interstate connection between Dallas, Tulsa, and northeast Oklahoma.
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 160
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 11:59:30 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #83 on: June 16, 2021, 01:17:39 AM »

I realize tearing down any freeway is a sensitive subject. It sometimes makes sense because they're relatively useless stubs like the Park Freeway in Milwaukee or the east end of the Gardner Freeway in Toronto. I don't think tearing down I-345 falls under that category and I've a feeling several here feel the same way. Note: There are a few threads on I-345 (like here, and here, and here) but they are either a different focus or old.

I don't have a dog in this fight since I don't live in Texas. I follow some urbanist blogs because of my mass transit interests. Sometimes they have good ideas and sometimes it's like reading the anti-FritzOwl. This seems to me the latter, especially the belief that 16K-18K vehicles per hour will magically use surface streets through the area like nothing changed.

To summarize, this wouldnt be the best approach to Dallas. I think a lot more could be done before considering removal. Like extend I-45 up north if possible and needed.
Logged

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 555
  • Safety > Danger ... Road Buffets > Road Diets

  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 07:57:17 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #84 on: June 16, 2021, 02:56:59 AM »

Extension is possible and it is overdue.
Logged
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1447
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: July 29, 2021, 01:50:34 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345 - my comments to TXDOT
« Reply #85 on: June 23, 2021, 08:32:29 PM »

It would be extremely foolish to knock down IH-345, replacing it with a street level boulevard, thus  creating a commuter nightmare.  It is discriminatory against lower income residents of South Dallas, and the southern suburbs as well, who have to drive to Central Dallas and points north, where the jobs are.   

Furthermore, US 75 and IH 45 are connected as a major north south thoroughfare.  Given the upgrades to US 75 south of LBJ Freeway, and improvements completed or under construction between Allen and the Sherman-Denison area, it would be better to renumber IH 345 and the entirety of US 75 to the state line as IH 45. Such a move would encourage Oklahoma to make needed improvements to US 69 and 75, thus providing an Interstate connection between Dallas, Tulsa, and northeast Oklahoma.
The Sherman construction project and the Calera construction project should both be finished in two years. At that time, there won't be any reason why I-45 can't be signed up to US 70 in Durant.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2576
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 09:11:08 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #86 on: June 24, 2021, 03:21:57 PM »

I think there will still be a few at-grade intersections along US-69/75 between where the existing freeway in Colbert ends and where the completed Calera project begins. IIRC the Calera project begins at Chickasaw Road and then goes North to the E2110 Road intersection at Chocktaw Casino. That will leave around a 3 mile gap between the North end of the Colbert freeway at mile marker 5 and Chickasaw Road.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8282
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 05:27:35 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #87 on: June 24, 2021, 03:37:08 PM »

I think there will still be a few at-grade intersections along US-69/75 between where the existing freeway in Colbert ends and where the completed Calera project begins. IIRC the Calera project begins at Chickasaw Road and then goes North to the E2110 Road intersection at Chocktaw Casino. That will leave around a 3 mile gap between the North end of the Colbert freeway at mile marker 5 and Chickasaw Road.

Since Bryan County seems to be one of the more amenable to freeway development along the 69/75 corridor (or at least hasn't voiced any opposition), it would seem the prospects for filling that 3-mile gap in the near term are at least even, which would open up the possibilities of signing I-45 up to at least the US 70 interchange. 
Logged

rtXC1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3
  • Last Login: July 29, 2021, 11:22:34 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #88 on: June 24, 2021, 04:16:06 PM »

I think there will still be a few at-grade intersections along US-69/75 between where the existing freeway in Colbert ends and where the completed Calera project begins. IIRC the Calera project begins at Chickasaw Road and then goes North to the E2110 Road intersection at Chocktaw Casino. That will leave around a 3 mile gap between the North end of the Colbert freeway at mile marker 5 and Chickasaw Road.

Since Bryan County seems to be one of the more amenable to freeway development along the 69/75 corridor (or at least hasn't voiced any opposition), it would seem the prospects for filling that 3-mile gap in the near term are at least even, which would open up the possibilities of signing I-45 up to at least the US 70 interchange.

Once "the gap" is completed in Sherman, I believe local officials are going to apply for interstate status to the border (link below). I also believe that I read on here somewhere that Oklahoma has planned to acquire ROW in Colbert along 69/75 at some point in the near future. If they are going to take this measure, perhaps they could add "Future I-45" signage a la "Future I-22" signage east of Memphis before that highway was brought up to interstate standards. Stopping at the Red River would be the way to go IMO. Then, when Oklahoma gets Colbert completed and a plan together for the remainder of the route, they can work on extending the interstate.

https://www.heralddemocrat.com/news/20170531/sdmpo-proposes-hwy-75-work-in-10-year-plan
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8282
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 05:27:35 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #89 on: June 24, 2021, 04:50:05 PM »

I think there will still be a few at-grade intersections along US-69/75 between where the existing freeway in Colbert ends and where the completed Calera project begins. IIRC the Calera project begins at Chickasaw Road and then goes North to the E2110 Road intersection at Chocktaw Casino. That will leave around a 3 mile gap between the North end of the Colbert freeway at mile marker 5 and Chickasaw Road.

Since Bryan County seems to be one of the more amenable to freeway development along the 69/75 corridor (or at least hasn't voiced any opposition), it would seem the prospects for filling that 3-mile gap in the near term are at least even, which would open up the possibilities of signing I-45 up to at least the US 70 interchange.

Once "the gap" is completed in Sherman, I believe local officials are going to apply for interstate status to the border (link below). I also believe that I read on here somewhere that Oklahoma has planned to acquire ROW in Colbert along 69/75 at some point in the near future. If they are going to take this measure, perhaps they could add "Future I-45" signage a la "Future I-22" signage east of Memphis before that highway was brought up to interstate standards. Stopping at the Red River would be the way to go IMO. Then, when Oklahoma gets Colbert completed and a plan together for the remainder of the route, they can work on extending the interstate.

https://www.heralddemocrat.com/news/20170531/sdmpo-proposes-hwy-75-work-in-10-year-plan

Since the Interstate designation applications are parsed out state by state, the scenario outlined here is likely -- TX will, at least initially, unilaterally apply to designate all of US 75 within the state as an I-45 extension (something which will probably include existing I-345 and likely to make the RE/T folks say WTF?).  As suggested, OK can deal with their own extension once plans are finalized for the initial segment north of the Red River.  The only exception would be if both TxDOT and ODOT jointly put in a combined application for an alignment up to US 70 or, alternately, the end of the freeway near the Bryan county line (less likely).  But since the TX segment will be completed before the OK Colbert "gap" is planned and/or let, a combined proposal is unlikely to happen; each state will process any paperwork separately.  But it's almost certain that OK won't pursue a designation without TX doing so first.
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 160
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 11:59:30 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #90 on: June 24, 2021, 09:08:00 PM »

I think that if I-45 were to be extended, maybe it can extend to Tulsa.
Not only that, I'd take it one step further and take it to Kansas City, KS with improvements to the US 69 corridor.
Actually, that would be nice. Now, if we carry this to Tulsa, Id recommend the US-75 corridor to Tulsa, and maybe from there, concurrent with I-44 until US-69 in Afton.
Logged

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 555
  • Safety > Danger ... Road Buffets > Road Diets

  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 07:57:17 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #91 on: June 24, 2021, 09:56:26 PM »


Durant and Ada have little objection to Highway Upgrades. They are overwhelmed with 2 lane roads and even are connecting a path between them using S.H. 48 and S.H. 3.

Durant's infrastructure is so bad, filled with narrow 2 lane roads, that many people, including teachers and students, are injured and out for the entire year, and at other times are killed from traffic fatalities. It seems to have been a problem for decades which is how The Necessary Superhighway was partially realigned near Durant ... also at the time nothing was near the new alignment.

It is possible they intend to use The Necessary Superhighway and U.S. 70 Bypass as a loop around it, so that they can simply drive on continuous four lane roads.

As for where to go in Tulsa: ... Perhaps Kansas can decide. It is better if they have Interstate 45 go on one path and a different Interstate Designation for the other path.
Logged
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8282
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 05:27:35 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #92 on: June 25, 2021, 03:34:23 AM »


Durant and Ada have little objection to Highway Upgrades. They are overwhelmed with 2 lane roads and even are connecting a path between them using S.H. 48 and S.H. 3.

Durant's infrastructure is so bad, filled with narrow 2 lane roads, that many people, including teachers and students, are injured and out for the entire year, and at other times are killed from traffic fatalities. It seems to have been a problem for decades which is how The Necessary Superhighway was partially realigned near Durant ... also at the time nothing was near the new alignment.

It is possible they intend to use The Necessary Superhighway and U.S. 70 Bypass as a loop around it, so that they can simply drive on continuous four lane roads.

As for where to go in Tulsa: ... Perhaps Kansas can decide. It is better if they have Interstate 45 go on one path and a different Interstate Designation for the other path.


45W to Tulsa, 45E through Muskogee, rejoining at Big Cabin after 45W multiplexes with 44, and continuing as I-45 up US 69 to KC metro.  That would bring Tulsa into the mix while maintaining the direct route via Muskogee (once their "forced march" through motel row is consigned to the history books).  Although comprehensive and close to ideal, that probably won't happen; if I-45 reaches I-40 in the next 10-15 years, it'll be a minor miracle.
Logged

dchristy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12
  • Location: Sherman, TX
  • Last Login: July 17, 2021, 11:31:33 AM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345 - my comments to TXDOT
« Reply #93 on: June 25, 2021, 10:10:51 AM »

It would be extremely foolish to knock down IH-345, replacing it with a street level boulevard, thus  creating a commuter nightmare.  It is discriminatory against lower income residents of South Dallas, and the southern suburbs as well, who have to drive to Central Dallas and points north, where the jobs are.   

Furthermore, US 75 and IH 45 are connected as a major north south thoroughfare.  Given the upgrades to US 75 south of LBJ Freeway, and improvements completed or under construction between Allen and the Sherman-Denison area, it would be better to renumber IH 345 and the entirety of US 75 to the state line as IH 45. Such a move would encourage Oklahoma to make needed improvements to US 69 and 75, thus providing an Interstate connection between Dallas, Tulsa, and northeast Oklahoma.
The Sherman construction project and the Calera construction project should both be finished in two years. At that time, there won't be any reason why I-45 can't be signed up to US 70 in Durant.

I believe there is a good chance the construction in Sherman can be finished in two years, but it is doubtful the work in Calera up to and including the intersection of US 75 at the Choctaw Casino can be finished and brought up to interstate standards in that time frame. 
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 752
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: July 29, 2021, 05:03:53 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #94 on: June 25, 2021, 11:13:13 AM »

You should do the following survey.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/i345PM2

The materials are at

http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/i345

Every positive comment will help the freeway continue.  You don't have to even support a particular freeway model. Just state you believe a freeway there is necessary and perhaps why. It does ask for name and address.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2576
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 09:11:08 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #95 on: June 25, 2021, 04:17:17 PM »

Quote from: In_Correct
Durant and Ada have little objection to Highway Upgrades. They are overwhelmed with 2 lane roads and even are connecting a path between them using S.H. 48 and S.H. 3.

An upgrade to US-69/75 won't do anything near term to improve streets in Durant or highway corridors like OK-48 and OK-3 between Durant and Ada. US-69/75 is already a freeway within Durant. It only needs some minor improvements to be brought up to current Interstate standards. Upgrades on US-69/75 would be relatively easy going North of Durant until the South side of Tushka near Atoka.

I would like to see the OK-3 corridor improved, or a diagonal turnpike built across the SE part of Oklahoma linking metro OKC directly to Texarkana and the I-49 corridor. Likewise, I'd like to see a diagonal Interstate going Northwest out of the OKC metro toward Colorado. Oklahoma City is a central hub of the Interstate highway network.

Quote from: sparker
45W to Tulsa, 45E through Muskogee, rejoining at Big Cabin after 45W multiplexes with 44, and continuing as I-45 up US 69 to KC metro.  That would bring Tulsa into the mix while maintaining the direct route via Muskogee (once their "forced march" through motel row is consigned to the history books).  Although comprehensive and close to ideal, that probably won't happen; if I-45 reaches I-40 in the next 10-15 years, it'll be a minor miracle.

It would difficult enough as it is just to get one I-45 route built in Oklahoma, much less two.

I'm not very optimistic about the potential of the concept to route an extended I-45 on US-75 through Tulsa. The concept is sensible from a position of directly linking major population centers (Dallas and Tulsa in this case). For moving commerce (like big trucks) it would make more sense to upgrade the US-69 corridor to Big Cabin.

The US-75 corridor has its own issues that make an Interstate upgrade not so easy. Obviously a new terrain bypass would be required around Olkmulgee. In towns like Glenpool the existing divided US-75 highway varies on the amount of ROW available. In some spots a freeway upgrade would be simple; in other places properties will have to be cleared. Finally there is the issue of pushing an added traffic burden into the middle of Tulsa. The existing US-75 facility is only 2 lanes in both directions up to the I-244 split. And then Tulsa's downtown loop is pretty outdated in its design and lacking in overall traffic handling capacity.

An I-45 leg from Tulsa to Kansas City would be difficult to define, much less build. Southeast Kansas has multiple N-S corridors. US-69 from Overland Park down to Fort Scott has had the most improvement. Not nearly as much has happened with US-169 or US-75. An I-45 routing to Big Cabin would make it easier to close a gap with the US-69 freeway in Eastern Kansas.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2021, 04:19:37 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8282
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 05:27:35 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #96 on: June 25, 2021, 05:24:48 PM »

^^^^^^^^^^^
One of the factors that would need to be assessed before even seriously considering shifting any E OK corridor based on present US 69 toward Tulsa, ostensibly over INT and US 75, is the level of intercity trips, commercial or otherwise, utilizing the present corridor.  From a regional standpoint, it's quite likely that maintaining such a corridor along US 69 via Muskogee to I-44 at Big Cabin would be the most appropriate from a commercial standpoint, as both St. Louis and KC outstrip Tulsa as far as being commercial distribution hubs.  But if there's any indication that DFW-Tulsa is a legitimate singular corridor, a western "branch" might warrant at least consideration. 

What I was thinking is that if a Tulsa branch (let's just call it 45W for kicks) were to be designated, it would be routed over the Creek Turnpike to expedite (and monetize!) any through movement; north of there to central Tulsa itself could be something like I-245.  Now -- this would also work if the INT-Big Cabin portion along US 69 continues to be stalled due to Muskogee politics; a through I-45 would use the Creek before jumping onto the Will Rogers along with I-44, with the same 3di "feed" into Tulsa itself.  That would keep through traffic away from central Tulsa while providing a relatively straightforward path for interregional N-S traffic. 
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 752
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: July 29, 2021, 05:03:53 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #97 on: June 25, 2021, 06:02:22 PM »

^^^^^^^^^^^
One of the factors that would need to be assessed before even seriously considering shifting any E OK corridor based on present US 69 toward Tulsa, ostensibly over INT and US 75, is the level of intercity trips, commercial or otherwise, utilizing the present corridor.  From a regional standpoint, it's quite likely that maintaining such a corridor along US 69 via Muskogee to I-44 at Big Cabin would be the most appropriate from a commercial standpoint, as both St. Louis and KC outstrip Tulsa as far as being commercial distribution hubs.  But if there's any indication that DFW-Tulsa is a legitimate singular corridor, a western "branch" might warrant at least consideration. 

What I was thinking is that if a Tulsa branch (let's just call it 45W for kicks) were to be designated, it would be routed over the Creek Turnpike to expedite (and monetize!) any through movement; north of there to central Tulsa itself could be something like I-245.  Now -- this would also work if the INT-Big Cabin portion along US 69 continues to be stalled due to Muskogee politics; a through I-45 would use the Creek before jumping onto the Will Rogers along with I-44, with the same 3di "feed" into Tulsa itself.  That would keep through traffic away from central Tulsa while providing a relatively straightforward path for interregional N-S traffic.

I think we tend to minimize Tulsa on here.  There are around a million people in the Tulsa metro area. The 54th largest US Metro area. While a Dallas to I-44 trip is better served with the US-69 Big Cabin routing, but the US75 to Tulsa and US-169 to KCK is the better choice for the population center and the existing upgrades to US-169 in Kansas.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8282
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 05:27:35 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #98 on: June 25, 2021, 09:13:38 PM »

^^^^^^^^^^^
One of the factors that would need to be assessed before even seriously considering shifting any E OK corridor based on present US 69 toward Tulsa, ostensibly over INT and US 75, is the level of intercity trips, commercial or otherwise, utilizing the present corridor.  From a regional standpoint, it's quite likely that maintaining such a corridor along US 69 via Muskogee to I-44 at Big Cabin would be the most appropriate from a commercial standpoint, as both St. Louis and KC outstrip Tulsa as far as being commercial distribution hubs.  But if there's any indication that DFW-Tulsa is a legitimate singular corridor, a western "branch" might warrant at least consideration. 

What I was thinking is that if a Tulsa branch (let's just call it 45W for kicks) were to be designated, it would be routed over the Creek Turnpike to expedite (and monetize!) any through movement; north of there to central Tulsa itself could be something like I-245.  Now -- this would also work if the INT-Big Cabin portion along US 69 continues to be stalled due to Muskogee politics; a through I-45 would use the Creek before jumping onto the Will Rogers along with I-44, with the same 3di "feed" into Tulsa itself.  That would keep through traffic away from central Tulsa while providing a relatively straightforward path for interregional N-S traffic.

I think we tend to minimize Tulsa on here.  There are around a million people in the Tulsa metro area. The 54th largest US Metro area. While a Dallas to I-44 trip is better served with the US-69 Big Cabin routing, but the US75 to Tulsa and US-169 to KCK is the better choice for the population center and the existing upgrades to US-169 in Kansas.

That's why I posited the Tulsa alternative if it becomes, for whatever reason, functionally unrealistic to extend I-45 straight up US 69 to Big Cabin via Muskogee.  But a reasonable compromise that gives through traffic a more direct and less congested route from north to south -- while still serving Tulsa metro -- would be the Creek Turnpike.  There's no reason to route it through downtown Tulsa; a 3di north of the present US 75/Creek Turnpike would more than suffice.  No downtown area, including this one, needs more commercial traffic through its midst if that can be avoided. 

As far as US 169 from Tulsa to KC is concerned -- while there are about 50 miles of freeway and Super-2 along 169 as it stands, it's clear that KDOT is prioritizing the US 69 corridor, largely to serve the more populated towns along that route (Fort Scott, Pittsburg).  Besides, OK would have to be convinced to extend the US 169 freeway north from its present terminus; the fact that parallel US 75 is already a combination of freeway and expressway north from Tulsa indicates where the priority lies there.  A combination corridor with a shunt somewhere around US 400 might work, but that's sheer speculation.  Getting the two DOT's to coordinate such an effort might be improbable; better to let KDOT finish off the US 69/69A corridor down to I-44 (likely using US 400 for the final leg) on its own. 

Don't forget that Tulsa metro may well get its 2nd nominal E-W Interstate relatively soon; ODOT may have its hands full trying to coordinate a Siloam Springs bypass with ADOT in order to make that corridor a reality.  That in itself may prompt ODOT, if an I-45 extension ever gets off the ground, to consider taking the same approach and utilizing existing facilities where it can, minimizing new-terrain construction and its corresponding expense. 
Logged

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1447
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: July 29, 2021, 01:50:34 PM
Re: A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345
« Reply #99 on: June 28, 2021, 02:32:00 AM »

The easiest way to send I-45 to Tulsa is up the Indian Nation Turnpike from McAlester. It may require buying out OTA + a significant outlay to upgrade to interstate standards. But it's way cheaper than a new terrain interstate that will almost completely duplicate the INT.
Logged

 


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