A New Plan for Tearing Down I-345

[Thegeet]

Do y'all think Austin could use an interstate connection to Houston? I would personally prefer most of the US-290 corridor if so.

Austin is more than big enough a city to justify a direct East-West Interstate quality connection to metro Houston. With as much rapid growth continuing to happen in the Austin region it might become necessary to upgrade both the US-290 corridor and TX-71 corridor from Austin toward Houston.

There's just not the demand there to upgrade both corridors to full interstate standards. Expressway, free flow? Maybe. But only one of the corridors actually needs to be limited access the whole way.

Let's say it was made interstate. Would it have to pair up with I-35 still?

What do you mean?

Would there still be a concurrency with I-35?

[In_Correct]

That is sad that D.A.R.T. has not released plans to accommodate The Unfinished Corridor. It should be a priority for D.A.R.T. to open The Unfinished Station before building another Subway line. The Unfinished Station was prevented from opening. I will be surprised if any Urbanist Developers actually ride D.A.R.T..

[sparker]

Do y'all think Austin could use an interstate connection to Houston? I would personally prefer most of the US-290 corridor if so.

Austin is more than big enough a city to justify a direct East-West Interstate quality connection to metro Houston. With as much rapid growth continuing to happen in the Austin region it might become necessary to upgrade both the US-290 corridor and TX-71 corridor from Austin toward Houston.

There's just not the demand there to upgrade both corridors to full interstate standards. Expressway, free flow? Maybe. But only one of the corridors actually needs to be limited access the whole way.

Let's say it was made interstate. Would it have to pair up with I-35 still?

What do you mean?

Would there still be a concurrency with I-35?

If you're talking about a C-shaped western loop for an I-45 alignment using, south-to-north, I-30 west, I-35E north, and TX 366 (the Woodall expressway), that would naturally involve a short multiplex with I-35E.  However, if a full teardown/boulevardization takes place -- and in time, I-45 was extended north on present US 75, it may well simply multiplex with I-20 east and I-635 north around the east side of town rather than try to negotiate the inner Woodall-based option.  At that time, the remaining spur routes could be either 3di's or even (gag) a freeway-boulevard-freeway business loop!  But at this point nothing is written in stone; and unless funding for such an alteration is expedited at the federal level, any such revision is decades away. 

[Thegeet]

Do y'all think Austin could use an interstate connection to Houston? I would personally prefer most of the US-290 corridor if so.

Austin is more than big enough a city to justify a direct East-West Interstate quality connection to metro Houston. With as much rapid growth continuing to happen in the Austin region it might become necessary to upgrade both the US-290 corridor and TX-71 corridor from Austin toward Houston.

There's just not the demand there to upgrade both corridors to full interstate standards. Expressway, free flow? Maybe. But only one of the corridors actually needs to be limited access the whole way.

Let's say it was made interstate. Would it have to pair up with I-35 still?

What do you mean?

Would there still be a concurrency with I-35?

If you're talking about a C-shaped western loop for an I-45 alignment using, south-to-north, I-30 west, I-35E north, and TX 366 (the Woodall expressway), that would naturally involve a short multiplex with I-35E.  However, if a full teardown/boulevardization takes place -- and in time, I-45 was extended north on present US 75, it may well simply multiplex with I-20 east and I-635 north around the east side of town rather than try to negotiate the inner Woodall-based option.  At that time, the remaining spur routes could be either 3di's or even (gag) a freeway-boulevard-freeway business loop!  But at this point nothing is written in stone; and unless funding for such an alteration is expedited at the federal level, any such revision is decades away.

I'm talking about a new interstate connection between Houston and Austin (US 290 and possibly SH 71 corridors) overlapping I-35 in Austin.

[Thegeet]

I think that if I-45 were to be extended, maybe it can extend to Tulsa.

[In_Correct]

It is much more likely to successfully keep The Unfinished Corridor Bridge in Dallas, Texas or make it below grade in the same area it is now. The Governor Of Oklahoma canceled any possibility to finish The Unfinished Corridor in Oklahoma.

Austin and Houston needs multiple Superhighways. Perhaps some of them can be Toll Roads.

[Bobby5280]

It is much more likely to successfully keep The Unfinished Corridor Bridge in Dallas, Texas or make it below grade in the same area it is now. The Governor Of Oklahoma canceled any possibility to finish The Unfinished Corridor in Oklahoma.

Kevin Stitt isn't going to be Governor of Oklahoma forever. Given the level of heavy truck traffic along US-69/75 in Oklahoma they're not going to be able to put off upgrades to the corridor forever either. Towns like Atoka and Stringtown have populations that are aging and not growing. The means the political clout they've had at blocking highway improvements is going to diminish and disappear. At some point they might advocate for freeway improvements to US-69/75 to encourage economic development. They might even get desperate about it.

There's just not the demand there to upgrade both corridors to full interstate standards. Expressway, free flow? Maybe. But only one of the corridors actually needs to be limited access the whole way.

I don't agree. The Houston metro is pretty gigantic in size. We all know the Austin metro has been rapidly growing. The US-290 corridor is the route of choice for traffic moving from the Northern half of metro Houston to the northern part of Austin, Georgetown, etc. TX-71 is a better choice moving between the Southern parts of metro Houston to the Southern parts of Austin.

Both US-290 and TX-71 have had substantial upgrades done over the years. US-290 is Interstate quality to the TX-6 junction in Hempstead. US-290 has had massive upgrades in the Houston area. TX-71 has a few limited access bypasses between I-10 and Austin. The non-freeway parts of both corridors is mostly a mix of 4-lane divided and undivided highway. They're not entirely free flowing; there are some traffic lights present along both corridors. As growth continues to take place in both metros both TX-71 and US-290 will need substantial improvements, namely freeway upgrades of existing highway segments or bypasses around developed areas.

[bwana39]

It is much more likely to successfully keep The Unfinished Corridor Bridge in Dallas, Texas or make it below grade in the same area it is now. The Governor Of Oklahoma canceled any possibility to finish The Unfinished Corridor in Oklahoma.

Austin and Houston needs multiple Superhighways. Perhaps some of them can be Toll Roads.

I know most of what you post is tongue in cheek, but I need to make sure everyone else understands, there is no Unfinished Corridor in downtown Dallas.  It was completed in the early seventies. The only controversy centers around the hodge-podge numbering.

A group of urbanist have seized upon the numbering to make it seem this road doesn't belong to anything; That it is both unneeded and incomplete. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

It is the direct link (through highway, no exit,,,same uninterrupted line of concrete) between I-45 (Julius Schepps Freeway) and US-75 (North Central Expressway): a 10-lane fully controlled access freeway that extends over 65 miles north (into Oklahoma)  as freeway.  I-45 superseded US-75 as the route from Galveston (Houston) to Interstate 30 in Dallas.  The bypassed portions of US-75 have been subsumed by various state and local highways and US-75 has been truncated at Downtown Dallas.

Why is this portion not part of US-75 or I-45? It isn't part of I-45, because at the time they did not want to commit I-45 to the US-75 route. As a fact of Texas roadbuilding theory at the time, it was contraindicated. Interstate funds were only used to build NEW freeways in Texas. North Central Expressway was already Freeway. I-45 and its earmarked funding would go some other direction (to date it has not.) 


So why is it (the UNSIGNED) I-345? Texas used (earmarked) Interstate funding to build it.  INTERSTATE funding could only be used to pay for INTERSTATES.  While it was a functional part of US-75, it had to have an interstate number attached to the paperwork, therefore a 3DI; I-345. For forty+ years, no one save a few roadgeeks ever cared! It was part of the free-flowing freeway from Galveston Island to Sherman.

Suddenly during the past decade the urbanists seized upon "I-345" as a mantra. In their scope of communication, it is an irrelevant less than a mile and a half freeway from nowhere to nowhere. Take it out and no one would notice....

RIGHT! Removing it would be like removing the Ft. Pitt bridge in Pittsburgh, The Lincoln AND Kennedy Bridges from Louisville, or I-85 from Lakewood to University in Atlanta.  In each case, there are alternatives, but.....

As to Oklahoma, I agree they need to get US-69 upgraded to a free-flowing configuration.  The only thing these two things have in common is they are on the same path a hundred or more miles apart.

[In_Correct]

Would it be better to say it is The Future Interstate 45?

Also it would be bad for them to choose a different highway to be Interstate 45. So far U.S. 75 was chosen. They ought to continue the same path.

[bwana39]

Would it be better to say it is The Future Interstate 45?

Also it would be bad for them to choose a different highway to be Interstate 45. So far U.S. 75 was chosen. They ought to continue the same path.

I agree with you in 2021. The thinking was less clear 45+ years ago.

[Avalanchez71]

Yet another boondoggle 

Just like I-87 , I-73 and I-74 in NC.

[sprjus4]

Yet another boondoggle 

Just like I-87 , I-73 and I-74 in NC.

Yeah, not even a close comparison. Then again, anti-highway user on a roads forum, so what should I expect 

[The Ghostbuster]

Technically, the Interstate 45 designation could be extended along Interstate 345 and US 75 to Leavenworth Trail (Exit 4) north of Colbert, Oklahoma. I'd stop the Interstate 45 designation at the Texas/Oklahoma border until US 69/75 is upgraded to Interstate Standards between Exit 4 and Exit 12 (US 70 Bypass of Durant, OK), and then extend the 45 designation to OK 22 (Exit 26) in Caddo. In any event, I'd decommission US 75 south of its junction with US 69 just north of Atoka (Corner of W. Liberty Rd. and N. Mississippi Ave.).

[bwana39]

Technically, the Interstate 45 designation could be extended along Interstate 345 and US 75 to Leavenworth Trail (Exit 4) north of Colbert, Oklahoma. I'd stop the Interstate 45 designation at the Texas/Oklahoma border until US 69/75 is upgraded to Interstate Standards between Exit 4 and Exit 12 (US 70 Bypass of Durant, OK), and then extend the 45 designation to OK 22 (Exit 26) in Caddo. In any event, I'd decommission US 75 south of its junction with US 69 just north of Atoka (Corner of W. Liberty Rd. and N. Mississippi Ave.).

There are still a few hiccups in Grayson County. That said, they are working on it. This upgrade is the biggest project in the TXDOT Paris District's History.

[Henry]

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.

[sparker]

Technically, the Interstate 45 designation could be extended along Interstate 345 and US 75 to Leavenworth Trail (Exit 4) north of Colbert, Oklahoma. I'd stop the Interstate 45 designation at the Texas/Oklahoma border until US 69/75 is upgraded to Interstate Standards between Exit 4 and Exit 12 (US 70 Bypass of Durant, OK), and then extend the 45 designation to OK 22 (Exit 26) in Caddo. In any event, I'd decommission US 75 south of its junction with US 69 just north of Atoka (Corner of W. Liberty Rd. and N. Mississippi Ave.).

There are still a few hiccups in Grayson County. That said, they are working on it. This upgrade is the biggest project in the TXDOT Paris District's History.

As I've stated previously, US 69 and partially 75 from the TX state line to I-40 at Checotah has, via section #1174 of the 1991 ISTEA act (never rescinded), been Congressionally "pre-approved" for Interstate status once meeting those criteria -- and with the approval/consent of ODOT.  In other words, if OK wants it, they've got it -- but to date only the southern end, with its continuing projects to build a continuous freeway from TX north to the Bryant county line, and from McAlester north to I-40, even comes close to qualifying.  Of course the story of why ODOT hasn't pushed development here has been elucidated in other threads ad nauseum; suffice it to say that it's a political hot potato (calling it as it is: to a large degree quasi-officially sanctioned speed traps!).  But a lot of truckers use it to shave off miles DFW-St. Louis or KC despite it being a slog along some segments, so as long as there's a semi-golden goose out there (also the reason for the perennial Muskogee situation farther north) the powers that be in OK would rather not effect any significant changes.   

[bwana39]

The urbanists want this stretch of the n/s freeway torn down. They talk about how great a walkable boulevard would be here.

This boulevard they seem to desire was how the previous routing of US-75 was. Central Expressway originally was US-75 north AND south of as well as through  downtown. It fully connected. The part in the central downtown area followed the current Cesar Chavez Boulevard. South of downtown, it is Cesar Chavez then it becomes S.M. Wright (Freeway), and finally south of US-175 it resumes the (south) Central Expressway moniker. 
Fifty years ago they didn't want the through traffic on the city streets and built the elevated freeway on the east side of downtown.  Why did they build it elevated?  So that traffic and pedestrians would have virtually unrestricted passage under it. 

Central expressway was not a good solution then and a road like it is not a solution now.

[Avalanchez71]

Isn't there sufficient access to walk along other sidewalks in town?  This is a weird one.  Just renumber it to BUS SPUR I-45 once they tear it down.  The north section marked currently as US 75 could become I-45N.

[sprjus4]

Isn't there sufficient access to walk along other sidewalks in town?  This is a weird one.  Just renumber it to BUS SPUR I-45 once they tear it down.  The north section marked currently as US 75 could become I-45N.

It's highly unlike I-345 / US-75 is going to come down in the first place.

[Avalanchez71]

Isn't there sufficient access to walk along other sidewalks in town?  This is a weird one.  Just renumber it to BUS SPUR I-45 once they tear it down.  The north section marked currently as US 75 could become I-45N.

It's highly unlike I-345 / US-75 is going to come down in the first place.

I agree if the powers to be don't shift.

[bwana39]

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/

[TheBox]

Technically, the Interstate 45 designation could be extended along Interstate 345 and US 75 to Leavenworth Trail (Exit 4) north of Colbert, Oklahoma. I'd stop the Interstate 45 designation at the Texas/Oklahoma border until US 69/75 is upgraded to Interstate Standards between Exit 4 and Exit 12 (US 70 Bypass of Durant, OK), and then extend the 45 designation to OK 22 (Exit 26) in Caddo. In any event, I'd decommission US 75 south of its junction with US 69 just north of Atoka (Corner of W. Liberty Rd. and N. Mississippi Ave.).

When it comes to the idea of I-45 in Tulsa from Savanna, I heard one guy said that it should bypass Tulsa and go straight to Big Cabin, cause of the truck traffic there.

Whiling i'll say, make some streamlined bypass intersection from US-69 to overriding with Indian Nation Turnpike (later US-62 between Henryetta and Okmulgee before US-75 takes over from Okmulgee onwards), and then override with I-244 from US-75 to US-169 in Tulsa, maybe make a brand new road section where it connects to US-69 (again) near Tulsa (cause US-169 is not in interstate standards, and i don't know if they have any space for the frontage roads there), and either way US-69 or US-169 merges with I-35 at the end.

and as for Big Cabin. They can always make US-69 from Big Cabin to Henryetta/McAlister a complete free-flow expressway

doubt any of this will ever happen any time soon, for obvious reasons

[sparker]

Technically, the Interstate 45 designation could be extended along Interstate 345 and US 75 to Leavenworth Trail (Exit 4) north of Colbert, Oklahoma. I'd stop the Interstate 45 designation at the Texas/Oklahoma border until US 69/75 is upgraded to Interstate Standards between Exit 4 and Exit 12 (US 70 Bypass of Durant, OK), and then extend the 45 designation to OK 22 (Exit 26) in Caddo. In any event, I'd decommission US 75 south of its junction with US 69 just north of Atoka (Corner of W. Liberty Rd. and N. Mississippi Ave.).

When it comes to the idea of I-45 in Tulsa from Savanna, I heard one guy said that it should bypass Tulsa and go straight to Big Cabin, cause of the truck traffic there.

Whiling i'll say, make some streamlined bypass intersection from US-69 to overriding with Indian Nation Turnpike (later US-62 between Henryetta and Okmulgee before US-75 takes over from Okmulgee onwards), and then override with I-244 from US-75 to US-169 in Tulsa, maybe make a brand new road section where it connects to US-69 (again) near Tulsa (cause US-169 is not in interstate standards, and i don't know if they have any space for the frontage roads there), and either way US-69 or US-169 merges with I-35 at the end.

and as for Big Cabin. They can always make US-69 from Big Cabin to Henryetta/McAlister a complete free-flow expressway

doubt any of this will ever happen any time soon, for obvious reasons

There's a longstanding thread over in Central States that has dealt with the US 69 (75) corridor for some time; including prospects for Interstate upgrades, which have generally been dismal due to a plethora of conflicting local interests ranging from wanting to maintain speed traps along the southern reaches of the corridor to Muskogee interests wanting to maintain the status quo of US 69 slogging through its present business-heavy street alignment.  Shifting it to Tulsa via the INT plus an upgraded US 75 north of Henryetta has been discussed as well, with the prospects there just about as dim. 

The only bright spot in OK seems to be the US 412 E-W corridor including the Cimarron and Cherokee turnpikes; it's been proposed as an Interstate corridor by what seems to be the most prevalent method over the past decade:  get your Congressional delegation, plus that of other states if needed, to get it designated as a future Interstate corridor in the federal lexicon.  That way having to get one's state DOT to initiate the action with AASHTO concurrence is bypassed by direct congressional action.  That might be the only way to get what would logically be I-45 commissioned over US 69 or, alternately, to Tulsa.  Chances are that a congressperson or two from TX would be glad to help out in this matter, especially since their segment is essentially complete or close to it; but getting their OK counterparts to ignore what has become several political "hot potatoes" along the corridor and designate it in spite of all that might be a tall order. 

And despite all that -- even if an I-45 extension were to gain traction in both TX and OK, there's no guarantee that the RE/T folks pushing for elimination of the I-345 corridor segment will simply wither away; they could push for a Syracuse-style perimeter reroute around Dallas' east side along I-635 instead.   It might take an impermeable "brick wall" of opposition to a complete removal to save the corridor's direct path regardless of physical configuration.  But then it's Texas -- so anything may happen! 

[sprjus4]

Given sheer volumes, and national importance, I'd 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.

[Bobby5280]

IMHO, routing I-45 onto LBJ Freeway is an enormously bad idea. I-635 in Mesquite, Garland and North Dallas/Addison already carries an immense amount of traffic. It does not need thru traffic from an extended I-45 directed onto it via signs.

If the new urbanist types succeed in getting I-345 removed it would be better to route any extension of I-45 farther outside Dallas via the proposed Texas Loop 9 DFW outer loop or a combination of the SE quadrant of Loop 9 and a completed George H.W. Bush Tollway. The existing leg of I-45 inside of the proposed Loop 9 can be re-signed as I-345, where it can dead end at a slog of traffic signals and over-priced parking options in downtown Dallas.

Regarding the concept of I-45 in Oklahoma, I have a feeling pressure will build for more Interstate quality upgrades once US-69/75 is Interstate quality up to Durant. That would especially be true if the road was signed as an Interstate up to Durant. The road can be easily brought up to Interstate standards as far North as Tushka, which is just South of Atoka.

The freeway-blocking situations in Atoka and Stringtown can't last. Rural counties in Oklahoma lost significant amounts of population between the 2010 and 2020 Census. That drain of population will continue. The state and federal district lines are being re-drawn and those rural counties will lose a LOT of clout to bigger cities, especially to metro OKC. As those small towns continue to age and lose youth population to better opportunity elsewhere more businesses along US-69 through there will close. All of that will make it easier to bring US-69 up to Interstate standards there.

Muskogee is big enough that it's not going to simply age out and dry up over time. But all that heavy truck traffic along 32nd Street is a safety issue. It also has to be a source of frequent street repair needs too. If ODOT really wanted to be a sly jerk about it they could create a 2 lane truck bypass West of the Muskogee city limits. And they could make the modest bypass in such a way that it could be eventually 4-laned and then converted to Interstate quality limited access. Problem solved.