Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Road Hog]

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.

[In_Correct]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[bwana39]

Like I said on the other of the dueling threads comment....

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29349.msg2630145#msg2630145

[sparker]

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!

[kernals12]

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.

[bwana39]

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.

[TXtoNJ]

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.

[bwana39]

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.

[sparker]

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.

[I-55]

Speaking of, I-345 is now signed on Google Maps.

[sparker]

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!

[I-55]

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.

[bwana39]

And Google Maps has I-69 labeled through Memphis

[Thegeet]

And Google Maps has I-69 labeled through Memphis

And south of Cleveland.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[sparker]

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. 

[MaxConcrete]

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
Discussion starts at 5:50 in Item 4 of the video: 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

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[74/171FAN]

I just received an email from TXDOT stating that they anticipate that the last round of public meetings will be held in Spring 2022.

[bwana39]

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 mío estaba todo en español

[MaxConcrete]

Good news was reported at NCTCOG yesterday. See item 4, starting at 20:00.
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.

[Plutonic Panda]

Great news!

[Plutonic Panda]

The third and final public scooping meeting will be held on may 24th:

Please 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.