Dallas TX: "TO I-45 SOUTH" sign inside Spur 366 Tunnel

[Brian556]

Notice that the sign says "TO I-45", alluding to I-345's existance. This is an inconsistancy considering that the signs on I-30 don't say TO US 75 NORTH.
Also, I think that this has been mentioned on here before, but the sign on I-45 south at US 175 says "TO US 175", even though the exit goes directly onto US 175. I think this is a relic from before US 75's decomissioning south of Dallas, and the "TO" was incorrectly carried over onto the new signs.

I think the inside of this tunnel looks pretty cool.

[wxfree]

That tunnel's pretty neat; I've been through it once.  I need to visit the park on top sometime.

Normally, I'd consider something like the observation about the sign to be nit-picky, but given TxDOT's usual history of doing things just so when placing signs, I think it's an interesting observation.  I've always liked how much they try to be technically correct (other than glaring exceptions like the one you mentioned on I-30 which seem to be intentional decisions).  I wouldn't mind if the new sign was the beginning of a trend to be even more technically correct.  I suppose it could confuse some people, who mostly don't know I-345 is there, but I doubt many people notice such nuances as "TO."

[Brian556]

When it comes to technical correctness, I wish they would sign spurs with their actual number instead of just "TO (whatever road). It kinda makes navigation difficult if you see SPUR 366 on a map, but the signs (on I-35E) only say "TO I-45 /US 75.

[MaxConcrete]

Several years ago when I was researching the DFW Freeways book I spoke to someone at TxDOT who said Spur 366 was going to be recognized in signage on IH 45 and IH 35E since Spur 366 was going to be extended westward from IH 35E. At the time, signs on IH 45 said "To IH 35E" and signs on IH 35E said "To IH 45" with no mention of Spur 366. The extension of Spur 366 opened in March 2012.

So it sounds like they decided not to recognize Spur 366 after all.

[Brian556]

So it sounds like they decided not to recognize Spur 366 after all.

Yep. The only recontition that it gets is the reasurrace sign on the exit ramp from I-45. There was one on the ramp from I-35E, but it was removed during construction and not replaced.

[Road Hog]

Technically it's not a tunnel, it's a depressed freeway with a roof over it so they could build a downtown park on top of it. To me, a tunnel requires boring into the side of a mountain or beneath a body of water.

[Alps]

Technically it's not a tunnel, it's a depressed freeway with a roof over it so they could build a downtown park on top of it. To me, a tunnel requires boring into the side of a mountain or beneath a body of water.

We've had this discussion elsewhere. This is the definition of a "cut and cover" tunnel.

[roadman65]

Something to note about cut and cover, realistically you cannot even that exactly.  If you look on GSV, you will see the street car captured it before the tunnel was completed. There were originally 3 long underpasses that were roofed over to enclose the entire structure. 

True cut and cover, although covered years after the cut, so in the usual sense it is not but is in technical terms. 

To me a long underpass is considered a tunnel.   Just as the Battery Park Underpass in NYC is a tunnel in my book.  However, that is most likely referred to that to avoid confusion with the Brooklyn- Battery Tunnel that is called by locals as the Battery Tunnel.  Nonetheless that particular underground roadway is a tunnel in lieu of its calling.

[txstateends]

But, when approaching from the north on US 75, there are no "TO"s on any I-45 BGSes or pole signs; it's just "SOUTH I-45" on poles and "SOUTH I-45  Houston" on the BGSes.

[Alps]

Something to note about cut and cover, realistically you cannot even that exactly.  If you look on GSV, you will see the street car captured it before the tunnel was completed. There were originally 3 long underpasses that were roofed over to enclose the entire structure. 

True cut and cover, although covered years after the cut, so in the usual sense it is not but is in technical terms. 

To me a long underpass is considered a tunnel.   Just as the Battery Park Underpass in NYC is a tunnel in my book.  However, that is most likely referred to that to avoid confusion with the Brooklyn- Battery Tunnel that is called by locals as the Battery Tunnel.  Nonetheless that particular underground roadway is a tunnel in lieu of its calling.

You know that notice that says "This topic hasn't been replied to in over 6 months?" LISTEN TO IT

[roadman65]

Something to note about cut and cover, realistically you cannot even that exactly.  If you look on GSV, you will see the street car captured it before the tunnel was completed. There were originally 3 long underpasses that were roofed over to enclose the entire structure. 

True cut and cover, although covered years after the cut, so in the usual sense it is not but is in technical terms. 

To me a long underpass is considered a tunnel.   Just as the Battery Park Underpass in NYC is a tunnel in my book.  However, that is most likely referred to that to avoid confusion with the Brooklyn- Battery Tunnel that is called by locals as the Battery Tunnel.  Nonetheless that particular underground roadway is a tunnel in lieu of its calling.

You know that notice that says "This topic hasn't been replied to in over 6 months?" LISTEN TO IT

FYI, the notice did not appear to me!  Also, what I said does indeed contribute to the discussion!  Furthermore, I did not wish to waste another thread on this SAME topic!

[AsphaltPlanet]

That is a really good quality photo from within a tunnel*.