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 (https://city.milwaukee.gov/DCD/Projects/ParkEastredevelopment/Park-East-History) or the east end of the Gardner Freeway in Toronto (https://www.toronto.ca/explore-enjoy/history-art-culture/online-exhibits/web-exhibits/web-exhibits-architecture-infrastructure/the-gardiner-expressway-east-comes-down/). I don't think tearing down I-345 (https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2021/04/a-new-plan-for-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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24983.0), and here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21756.0), and here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25140.0)) 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.
Txdot should just route i-45 up this road and end this debate.
Pixel 5
If they remove the unsigned I-345 section it will result in far worse traffic snarls through the I-35E/I-30 "mix-master" (aka the Horseshoe). Northwest Expressway traffic will be forced onto the short Woodall Rodgers Freeway and then onto I-35E & I-30 just to get back around to I-45.
North Central freeway traffic isn't just going to drive through a dozen blocks worth of traffic lights along a newly "beautified" surface street just to get to I-45. And even if the freeway traffic did take the new surface street the resulting traffic gridlock would be every bit as dangerous to pedestrians and bicyclists as any other real world factor one could imagine. Over the long term people would do more to avoid the downtown Dallas area in general. They'll really do that in earnest if powers that be make it punitive to drive a vehicle into the downtown area. Downtown Dallas has no monopoly on places to do business, eat out or have fun. There are plenty of other zones all over the metroplex that can provide the same thing.
Quote from: skluth on May 17, 2021, 04:42:50 PM
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 (https://city.milwaukee.gov/DCD/Projects/ParkEastredevelopment/Park-East-History) or the east end of the Gardner Freeway in Toronto (https://www.toronto.ca/explore-enjoy/history-art-culture/online-exhibits/web-exhibits/web-exhibits-architecture-infrastructure/the-gardiner-expressway-east-comes-down/). I don't think tearing down I-345 (https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2021/04/a-new-plan-for-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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24983.0), and here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21756.0), and here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25140.0)) 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.
I think the planners on this idea ASSUME that the heavy truck traffic is going to evaporate. While cars might make a 35 to 40 MPH on city streets if the lights go their way, heavy trucks don't have the leisure of fast acceleration or even more notably, near instantaneous stops. For the truck traffic, the speed will be more like 20-25 mph. That also means that most of the other traffic on the path will also be at 25 mph. How close are the traffic signals going to be? The answer is too close to even have the automobile traffic at cruising speeds (even the mentioned 40MPH).
Like I have said before elsewhere. They need to get US-75 completed to US-69 and extend I-45 to at least that point. It would cement the idea that a through freeway is necessary. SS-366 (Woodall Rogers Freeway) cannot be expanded. They cannot hope to do what is proposed and probably will be done in Houston (open up a side of downtown). There is not the room on all three of the other sides. PERIOD. While I may disagree with the downtown reconfiguration in Houston, it is feasible. The idea these folk in Dallas are proposing is ridiculous.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 17, 2021, 05:04:46 PM
Txdot should just route i-45 up this road and end this debate.
Pixel 5
Yet another boondoggle :no:
Quoterelatively useless stubs
No such thing.
I drive The Metroplex often on both Boulevards and Interstates and neither are good enough. They badly need Interchanges
https://i.imgur.com/XBAJ74O.jpg
and Continuous One Way Pair Frontage Roads With Bridges Over Obstacles ... nearby Highways ... U.S. ... State ... F.M. ... must be upgraded also.
Truckers must provide the Necessary Backlash against every Road Diet Project including but not limited to The Unfinished Corridor.
Also in Oklahoma The Governor has said Local Economies This And Local Economies That so he is going to put an end to any Upgrades in Oklahoma.
Boulevards wear faster than Interstates.
I live in a city (Austin) that scrapped a plan 35 years ago because they said if you don't build it they won't come. Now they want to tear out freeways. Good luck with that.
There are some ideas with merit (such as the Park East Freeway in Milwaukee and the planned I-375 downgrade in Detroit), and then there are some moronic ones, which I-345 falls under. Come on, the link between I-45 and the Central Expressway is already there, so why just let it be?
At the very least, I'd just bury the freeway underground (like they're doing in Denver with I-70) and call it a day.
How likely is it this road is removed? From what I know, I don't think the urbanist get their way. Though I am a tad concerned Dallas was quick to approve the D2 subway without considering a lowered I-345.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 18, 2021, 11:25:40 AM
How likely is it this road is removed? From what I know, I don't think the urbanist get their way. Though I am a tad concerned Dallas was quick to approve the D2 subway without considering a lowered I-345.
I am not sure that wasn't the point. With D-2 as planned what they call I-345 either has to be completely removed or redone in the same way. I am not sure anyone but the Dallas Observer really supports its removal. It isn't like Houston. I have talked about the inability to expand Woodall Rogers, but I really haven't talked about the largest hurdle to removal. The new freeway route would be over ten miles farther. In Houston, the new route is very little longer.
Quote from: bwana39 on May 18, 2021, 11:36:53 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 18, 2021, 11:25:40 AM
How likely is it this road is removed? From what I know, I don't think the urbanist get their way. Though I am a tad concerned Dallas was quick to approve the D2 subway without considering a lowered I-345.
I am not sure that wasn't the point. With D-2 as planned what they call I-345 either has to be completely removed or redone in the same way. I am not sure anyone but the Dallas Observer really supports its removal. It isn't like Houston. I have talked about the inability to expand Woodall Rogers, but I really haven't talked about the largest hurdle to removal. The new freeway route would be over ten miles farther. In Houston, the new route is very little longer.
Which is quite a shame because there was a real opportunity to truly increase alternative transportation AND facilitate a major interstate expansion while reconnecting a neighborhood that would do well attached to downtown. But if you ask me, keeping I-345(I-45!!!!) is vastly more important than connecting Deep Ellum to downtown and I suspect I'm not the only who feels that way. The RE/T crowd shots themselves in the foot here.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 18, 2021, 11:45:39 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 18, 2021, 11:36:53 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 18, 2021, 11:25:40 AM
How likely is it this road is removed? From what I know, I don't think the urbanist get their way. Though I am a tad concerned Dallas was quick to approve the D2 subway without considering a lowered I-345.
I am not sure that wasn't the point. With D-2 as planned what they call I-345 either has to be completely removed or redone in the same way. I am not sure anyone but the Dallas Observer really supports its removal. It isn't like Houston. I have talked about the inability to expand Woodall Rogers, but I really haven't talked about the largest hurdle to removal. The new freeway route would be over ten miles farther. In Houston, the new route is very little longer.
Which is quite a shame because there was a real opportunity to truly increase alternative transportation AND facilitate a major interstate expansion while reconnecting a neighborhood that would do well attached to downtown. But if you ask me, keeping I-345(I-45!!!!) is vastly more important than connecting Deep Ellum to downtown and I suspect I'm not the only who feels that way. The RE/T crowd shots themselves in the foot here.
Have you ever been to Deep Ellum? It is a group of 1 or 2 story mid-twentieth century commercial buildings. There is not and hardly ever was any residential in that area. The residential south of Ross was primarily around interstate 30. Interstate 30 did indeed break up neighborhoods.
There were some low income houses (shotgun shacks) immediately adjacent to the rail lines when central expressway was built two decades earlier, but as a whole, that was a good bit further north. This lore is trying to create what has yet to be created.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJe1iUuAW4M
By the way, I would bet with borrowed money or my last meal, that if I-345 were to be gone, that a handful or less of the buildings currently in Deep Ellum would still exist a decade after its removal.
^^^ I have and it's a nice community. Not sure about the residential portion but the times I have been it was lively and vibrant. A good asset for Dallas this neighborhood is. But I support I-345 over it any day of the week.
I would say LEAVE INTERSTATE 345 ALONE! The existing freeway is a needed-connection in the city's freeway system, and removing it would cause more problems than it solves. Surely there are better alternatives to improving and redeveloping the Dallas area without getting rid of 345.
Quote from: texaskdog on May 17, 2021, 08:27:34 PM
I live in a city (Austin) that scrapped a plan 35 years ago because they said if you don't build it they won't come. Now they want to tear out freeways. Good luck with that.
Yeah, that worked so well. They didn't built it in Austin (to keep it a small town!) and they still came anyway. Now we have a city with a population at about a million and an infrastructure comparable to a city of 100,000.
I think the freeway & toll road system Austin is a good bit better than a 100,000 person city. However, the powers that be sure did screw the pooch regarding I-35 in the downtown area. Austin hasn't been a modest size city in quite a while; the city limits population is on the verge of passing 1 million residents if that hasn't happened already. The metro area has 2 million. Enough traffic is moving within and through the Austin area to warrant serious corridor upgrades. Not just I-35 either.
Also, what is going on with all the partial directional stack interchanges? The I-35/TX-71 and US-183/TX-1 are proper stack interchanges. Others like TX-1/US-290, US-183/US-290, I-35/US-183, I-35/TX-45 and US-290/TX-130 are all partial stacks. Most of those interchanges will have to be expanded in the coming years.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 19, 2021, 01:32:44 PM
I think the freeway & toll road system Austin is a good bit better than a 100,000 person city. However, the powers that be sure did screw the pooch regarding I-35 in the downtown area. Austin hasn't been a modest size city in quite a while; the city limits population is on the verge of passing 1 million residents if that hasn't happened already. The metro area has 2 million. Enough traffic is moving within and through the Austin area to warrant serious corridor upgrades. Not just I-35 either.
Also, what is going on with all the partial directional stack interchanges? The I-35/TX-71 and US-183/TX-1 are proper stack interchanges. Others like TX-1/US-290, US-183/US-290, I-35/US-183, I-35/TX-45 and US-290/TX-130 are all partial stacks. Most of those interchanges will have to be expanded in the coming years.
The toll system is okay for the suburbs.
I am talking about getting around in the City of Austin itself, in particular the anti-freeway 60's and 70's that's burning us now. Not to mention Oak Hill freeway portion that is working on 40 years with no progress that once built will be 20 years obsolete.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 19, 2021, 01:32:44 PM
Austin hasn't been a modest size city in quite a while; the city limits population is on the verge of passing 1 million residents if that hasn't happened already. The metro area has 2 million. Enough traffic is moving within and through the Austin area to warrant serious corridor upgrades. Not just I-35 either.
U.S. 281 Also.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 19, 2021, 01:32:44 PM
Also, what is going on with all the partial directional stack interchanges? The I-35/TX-71 and US-183/TX-1 are proper stack interchanges. Others like TX-1/US-290, US-183/US-290, I-35/US-183, I-35/TX-45 and US-290/TX-130 are all partial stacks. Most of those interchanges will have to be expanded in the coming years.
https://i.imgur.com/XBAJ74O.jpg
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 19, 2021, 01:35:59 PM
The toll system is okay for the suburbs.
Of course it is. It has Toll Roads.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 19, 2021, 01:35:59 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 19, 2021, 01:32:44 PM
I think the freeway & toll road system Austin is a good bit better than a 100,000 person city. However, the powers that be sure did screw the pooch regarding I-35 in the downtown area. Austin hasn't been a modest size city in quite a while; the city limits population is on the verge of passing 1 million residents if that hasn't happened already. The metro area has 2 million. Enough traffic is moving within and through the Austin area to warrant serious corridor upgrades. Not just I-35 either.
Also, what is going on with all the partial directional stack interchanges? The I-35/TX-71 and US-183/TX-1 are proper stack interchanges. Others like TX-1/US-290, US-183/US-290, I-35/US-183, I-35/TX-45 and US-290/TX-130 are all partial stacks. Most of those interchanges will have to be expanded in the coming years.
The toll system is okay for the suburbs.
I am talking about getting around in the City of Austin itself, in particular the anti-freeway 60's and 70's that's burning us now. Not to mention Oak Hill freeway portion that is working on 40 years with no progress that once built will be 20 years obsolete.
they cancelled freeways in austin? i thought 35 was the only interstate ever proposed there
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 19, 2021, 10:22:54 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 17, 2021, 08:27:34 PM
I live in a city (Austin) that scrapped a plan 35 years ago because they said if you don't build it they won't come. Now they want to tear out freeways. Good luck with that.
Yeah, that worked so well. They didn't built it in Austin (to keep it a small town!) and they still came anyway. Now we have a city with a population at about a million and an infrastructure comparable to a city of 100,000.
Yet another similarity between Portland and Austin. Both claim to have invented the phrase Keep (Respective City) Weird, both have a high degree of hipsters, and both are staunchly anti-freeway. Portland will never upgrade any of their interstates no matter how many people move there.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 20, 2021, 01:04:59 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 19, 2021, 10:22:54 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 17, 2021, 08:27:34 PM
I live in a city (Austin) that scrapped a plan 35 years ago because they said if you don't build it they won't come. Now they want to tear out freeways. Good luck with that.
Yeah, that worked so well. They didn't built it in Austin (to keep it a small town!) and they still came anyway. Now we have a city with a population at about a million and an infrastructure comparable to a city of 100,000.
Yet another similarity between Portland and Austin. Both claim to have invented the phrase Keep (Respective City) Weird, both have a high degree of hipsters, and both are staunchly anti-freeway. Portland will never upgrade any of their interstates no matter how many people move there.
I believe several interstates in Portland are planned to be expanded/improved. Lots of vocalized opposition but they are still moving forward from what I understand. I hope it happens .
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 20, 2021, 01:11:01 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 20, 2021, 01:04:59 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 19, 2021, 10:22:54 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 17, 2021, 08:27:34 PM
I live in a city (Austin) that scrapped a plan 35 years ago because they said if you don't build it they won't come. Now they want to tear out freeways. Good luck with that.
Yeah, that worked so well. They didn't built it in Austin (to keep it a small town!) and they still came anyway. Now we have a city with a population at about a million and an infrastructure comparable to a city of 100,000.
Yet another similarity between Portland and Austin. Both claim to have invented the phrase Keep (Respective City) Weird, both have a high degree of hipsters, and both are staunchly anti-freeway. Portland will never upgrade any of their interstates no matter how many people move there.
I believe several interstates in Portland are planned to be expanded/improved. Lots of vocalized opposition but they are still moving forward from what I understand. I hope it happens .
My guess would be they're expanding them to include more bike lanes, but we'll see if this actually happens.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 20, 2021, 12:15:49 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 19, 2021, 01:35:59 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 19, 2021, 01:32:44 PM
I think the freeway & toll road system Austin is a good bit better than a 100,000 person city. However, the powers that be sure did screw the pooch regarding I-35 in the downtown area. Austin hasn't been a modest size city in quite a while; the city limits population is on the verge of passing 1 million residents if that hasn't happened already. The metro area has 2 million. Enough traffic is moving within and through the Austin area to warrant serious corridor upgrades. Not just I-35 either.
Also, what is going on with all the partial directional stack interchanges? The I-35/TX-71 and US-183/TX-1 are proper stack interchanges. Others like TX-1/US-290, US-183/US-290, I-35/US-183, I-35/TX-45 and US-290/TX-130 are all partial stacks. Most of those interchanges will have to be expanded in the coming years.
The toll system is okay for the suburbs.
I am talking about getting around in the City of Austin itself, in particular the anti-freeway 60's and 70's that's burning us now. Not to mention Oak Hill freeway portion that is working on 40 years with no progress that once built will be 20 years obsolete.
they cancelled freeways in austin? i thought 35 was the only interstate ever proposed there
yes. They canceled a few local east west freeways (mom-interstate) in the 60's and blocked a few more from being built that eventually did (portions of those are still not built yet...see US 290 on the west side of town).
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 20, 2021, 02:03:29 PM
(mom-interstate)
Thank you for this delightful typo!
"This interstate is just like the ones mom used to make." :-D
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 20, 2021, 01:04:59 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 19, 2021, 10:22:54 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 17, 2021, 08:27:34 PM
I live in a city (Austin) that scrapped a plan 35 years ago because they said if you don't build it they won't come. Now they want to tear out freeways. Good luck with that.
Yeah, that worked so well. They didn't built it in Austin (to keep it a small town!) and they still came anyway. Now we have a city with a population at about a million and an infrastructure comparable to a city of 100,000.
Yet another similarity between Portland and Austin. Both claim to have invented the phrase Keep (Respective City) Weird, both have a high degree of hipsters, and both are staunchly anti-freeway. Portland will never upgrade any of their interstates no matter how many people move there.
I always thought Austin sucked. The whole weird charm I think disappeared decades ago. Went there last January and wasn't impressed San Antonio was far better. the riverwalk is incredible. Austin just seemed like a city trying to be cool and failing epically at it.
San Antonio has a better highway system too, IMO.
From Downtown, three freeway spokes to the north (I-10, US-281, I-37), two freeway spokes to the south (I-35, I-37), and a freeway spoke in each direction east-west (I-10, US-90). Plus two beltways that serve as sufficient bypasses for through traffic on I-10 (Loop 1604) and I-35 (I-410) as well as moving traffic around the metro. Plus two other freeways, SH-151 and the more recent Wurzbach Pkwy (designed like a surface road, but posted at 60 mph and grade separated) for local traffic (no direct connections to the rest of the freeway network.
Long distance wise, is directly on I-35 and I-10 (also provides easy access to SH-130) plus I-37 so direct connections to Houston, Laredo, Corpus Christi, Austin, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, and beyond.
There's also no toll roads or lanes in the entire San Antonio metropolitan area, and none planned. They did a good job dodging the toll-road era that Houston, Austin, and Dallas-Fort Worth had, though there were certainly proposals. They are now all being constructed as toll free improvements. For example, the US-281 north freeway. The Loop 1604 expansion on the north side from 4 to 10 lanes. I-10 widening both east and west of the region. I-35 Express Lanes (through traffic lanes, not HO/T). The recently completed Loop 1604 freeway upgrade on the west side. I imagine inevitably the eastern section of Loop 1604 north of I-10 will also be upgraded. It serves an important role as an effective I-10 through bypass.
It is very nice SA has no tolls. I do so wish Dallas would embark on a plan to remove all of its toll roads.
I'm in favor of eliminating I-345. Just make it part of I-45.
Seriously, "tear it down"? Do you know how much traffic passes through this section of road on a daily basis? How much of US-75 in Dallas is Interstate-grade anyways?
I think TxDOT needs to extend I-45 ASAP which should help it in its endeavors to rebuild the downtown Dallas stretch of freeway in any fashion.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 20, 2021, 03:02:40 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 20, 2021, 01:04:59 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 19, 2021, 10:22:54 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 17, 2021, 08:27:34 PM
I live in a city (Austin) that scrapped a plan 35 years ago because they said if you don't build it they won't come. Now they want to tear out freeways. Good luck with that.
Yeah, that worked so well. They didn't built it in Austin (to keep it a small town!) and they still came anyway. Now we have a city with a population at about a million and an infrastructure comparable to a city of 100,000.
Yet another similarity between Portland and Austin. Both claim to have invented the phrase Keep (Respective City) Weird, both have a high degree of hipsters, and both are staunchly anti-freeway. Portland will never upgrade any of their interstates no matter how many people move there.
I always thought Austin sucked. The whole weird charm I think disappeared decades ago. Went there last January and wasn't impressed San Antonio was far better. the riverwalk is incredible. Austin just seemed like a city trying to be cool and failing epically at it.
Pretty much it. What drove people to Austin years ago is no longer there. The laid back hippie vibe has been gone for almost 30 years, replaced with an extremely pretentious attitude. All the wile trying to give the illusion that it is still a hippie utopia, or escape from the big cities. Everyone needs to wake the hell up.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2021, 03:13:50 PM
San Antonio has a better highway system too, IMO.
From Downtown, three freeway spokes to the north (I-10, US-281, I-37), two freeway spokes to the south (I-35, I-37), and a freeway spoke in each direction east-west (I-10, US-90). Plus two beltways that serve as sufficient bypasses for through traffic on I-10 (Loop 1604) and I-35 (I-410) as well as moving traffic around the metro. Plus two other freeways, SH-151 and the more recent Wurzbach Pkwy (designed like a surface road, but posted at 60 mph and grade separated) for local traffic (no direct connections to the rest of the freeway network.
Long distance wise, is directly on I-35 and I-10 (also provides easy access to SH-130) plus I-37 so direct connections to Houston, Laredo, Corpus Christi, Austin, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, and beyond.
There's also no toll roads or lanes in the entire San Antonio metropolitan area, and none planned. They did a good job dodging the toll-road era that Houston, Austin, and Dallas-Fort Worth had, though there were certainly proposals. They are now all being constructed as toll free improvements. For example, the US-281 north freeway. The Loop 1604 expansion on the north side from 4 to 10 lanes. I-10 widening both east and west of the region. I-35 Express Lanes (through traffic lanes, not HO/T). The recently completed Loop 1604 freeway upgrade on the west side. I imagine inevitably the eastern section of Loop 1604 north of I-10 will also be upgraded. It serves an important role as an effective I-10 through bypass.
I totally agree on SA's road system. Effective, and doesn't rely on any toll roads!
Are there long term plans for 1604 to be a complete limited access loop? It seems south and east of the metro area isn't super populated, so I don't imagine it's high priority, but Texas is great about building roads.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 20, 2021, 01:04:59 PM
Yet another similarity between Portland and Austin. Both claim to have invented the phrase Keep (Respective City) Weird, both have a high degree of hipsters, and both are staunchly anti-freeway. Portland will never upgrade any of their interstates no matter how many people move there.
MDOT is in the middle of widening I-95 to 6 lanes up to mile 49 as we speak.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 20, 2021, 07:04:02 PM
Are there long term plans for 1604 to be a complete limited access loop? It seems south and east of the metro area isn't super populated, so I don't imagine it's high priority, but Texas is great about building roads.
I believe there's been plans to upgrade the remaining segment north of I-10 on the east side to freeway standards, but the rest seems to be planned for four lane divided highway with interchanges / frontage roads at larger intersections. It appears it will be mostly traffic signal free though (except with junctions like US-90 West or I-37 South), and still room in the long term to upgrade further to limited access if needed.
You're right as far as population wise, the majority of the newer growth is on the north and west side, where US-281 is currently being upgraded to a freeway and where Loop 1604 was upgraded a few years ago, both from previous non-limited-access clogged arterials.
Having SH-130 is certainly nice to avoid Austin. Sure, there will always be local traffic issues with the local freeways and I-35, but there's always a route for long distance traffic to avoid it all entirely and stay in the freeway network (and with the bonus of faster 80-85 mph limits!) - no trying to circumnavigate back roads through small towns or sit on congested I-35.
Quote from: yakra on May 20, 2021, 08:23:16 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 20, 2021, 01:04:59 PM
Yet another similarity between Portland and Austin. Both claim to have invented the phrase Keep (Respective City) Weird, both have a high degree of hipsters, and both are staunchly anti-freeway. Portland will never upgrade any of their interstates no matter how many people move there.
MDOT is in the middle of widening I-95 to 6 lanes up to mile 49 as we speak.
Portland, Oregon....not Portland, Maine. :)
Quote from: ethanhopkin14I am talking about getting around in the City of Austin itself, in particular the anti-freeway 60's and 70's that's burning us now. Not to mention Oak Hill freeway portion that is working on 40 years with no progress that once built will be 20 years obsolete.
The Austin metro is just way too populated not to have a full Interstate quality outlet going West out of the area. US-290 should be that outlet, all the way past Johnson City and Fredericksburg to I-10. I agree, once the freeway is extended to just West of Circle Drive a whole lot of upgrading will be needed. Somehow the freeway has to be pushed West of Dripping Springs and connected to US-281 going to Johnson City. And TX-45 needs to be completed to I-35
and extended West to US-290. That would at least allow the South half of TX-45 to function as a proper bypass of downtown Austin.
Quote from: sprjus4San Antonio has a better highway system too, IMO.
Yeah, it's no contest when compared to Austin. San Antonio's freeway system at least has one complete loop highway. The FM-1604 outer loop is steadily being upgraded. The TX-46 corridor North of San Antonio is a serious threat for needing freeway upgrades from Boerne to New Braunfels and down to Seguin. With San Marcos growing rapidly the TX-80 corridor may eventually need a freeway from San Marcos down to Luling and I-10.
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".
Quote from: sparker on May 21, 2021, 07:31:31 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".
do these people realize this "useless spur" isn't even a spur? it goes straight north to the burbs too! I feel like they call it 345 so they can pretend it just goes for a few blocks, not as far as US 75 goes.
the only issue I have with san antonio's freeways is that weird kink in 410 on the north east side of town. what's up with that?
Quote from: sparker on May 21, 2021, 07:31:31 PM
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".
No one had ever heard of I-345 until the urbanists grabbed onto it as a mantra. It was something for them to marginalize the idea that the elevated section downtown was more than just a part of US-75.
Making it all be I-45 undoes said mantra. The only reason it isn't part of US-75 is because it was built 50 years ago more or less using money that only could be used on Interstate Highways. I-45 seemingly was never going to go that direction. Central Expressway beyond downtown was already freeway. If interstate funds were coming for I-45, there were other places to build with it. At the time it seemed a SH-78 route or perhaps TX-114 were candidates.
By the way, that is why no additional Interstates have been made in Texas. When Federal Funds reserved for only Interstate Highways evaporated, Texas didn't think a special number was worth the extra cost of making it meet that extra step as an Interstate. If you could build a US or State Highway freeway for 90% (perhaps less) than an Interstate, why not?
Wasn't US-281 North in San Antonio (effectively a northern continuation of I-37 similar to how US-75 is to I-45) built with 100% state funding to avoid the NEPA process?
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 21, 2021, 07:50:59 PM
Wasn't US-281 North in San Antonio (effectively a northern continuation of I-37 similar to how US-75 is to I-45) built with 100% state funding to avoid the NEPA process?
I am not so sure NEPA has anything to do with it, as virtually every construction project in Texas goes through what seems as the same EIS process as does those with Federal offsets. Historically in Texas before I-69 (which itself is federally mandated) and I-14 (which is a Fort Hood RAH-RAH), unless the funds were for Interstate routes only, Texas has preferred to do it their own way, which they cannot with an Interstate.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 21, 2021, 07:34:56 PM
the only issue I have with san antonio's freeways is that weird kink in 410 on the north east side of town. what's up with that?
From what I know, I-410 was never originally planned as a complete loop but more an "arc" around the north & west sides of town (why it wasn't I-435 is a mystery). It was extended around the south & east sides as a state loop; the way I-35 snakes through town dictated the northern junction point of the eastern loop segment. As San Antonio grew (almost exponentially!), it was decided to upgrade the whole loop to I-standards. Rather than rebuild the two I-410 junctions with I-35, the two simply multiplexed over the existing lanes. Just a matter of keeping the overall cost down for a project built out of necessity.
Do y'all think Austin could use an interstate connection to Houston? I would personally prefer most of the US-290 corridor if so.
Quote from: ThegeetDo 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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 21, 2021, 11:23:58 PM
Quote from: ThegeetDo 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.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 20, 2021, 09:30:50 PM
Portland, Oregon....not Portland, Maine. :)
:awesomeface: One time several years ago a band from outtastate was doing a show at the Space Gallery. Trying to get the crowd all pumped up before their set, they started excitedly saying how they'd checked the city out and how "Portland Maine is way cooler than Portland!"
I booed them.
Loudly.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 21, 2021, 11:44:50 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 21, 2021, 11:23:58 PM
Quote from: ThegeetDo 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?
Quote from: skluth on May 17, 2021, 04:42:50 PM
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 (https://city.milwaukee.gov/DCD/Projects/ParkEastredevelopment/Park-East-History) or the east end of the Gardner Freeway in Toronto (https://www.toronto.ca/explore-enjoy/history-art-culture/online-exhibits/web-exhibits/web-exhibits-architecture-infrastructure/the-gardiner-expressway-east-comes-down/). I don't think tearing down I-345 (https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2021/04/a-new-plan-for-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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24983.0), and here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21756.0), and here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25140.0)) 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.
Removing the "Spur" hurts the chances of I-45 being extended. Also, it would be really bad for Dallas.
Quote from: Thegeet on May 22, 2021, 03:24:40 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 21, 2021, 11:44:50 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 21, 2021, 11:23:58 PM
Quote from: ThegeetDo 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?
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 22, 2021, 03:31:53 AM
Quote from: Thegeet on May 22, 2021, 03:24:40 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 21, 2021, 11:44:50 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 21, 2021, 11:23:58 PM
Quote from: ThegeetDo 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?
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..
Quote from: Thegeet on May 22, 2021, 03:34:00 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 22, 2021, 03:31:53 AM
Quote from: Thegeet on May 22, 2021, 03:24:40 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 21, 2021, 11:44:50 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 21, 2021, 11:23:58 PM
Quote from: ThegeetDo 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.
Quote from: sparker on May 22, 2021, 05:51:51 PM
Quote from: Thegeet on May 22, 2021, 03:34:00 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 22, 2021, 03:31:53 AM
Quote from: Thegeet on May 22, 2021, 03:24:40 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 21, 2021, 11:44:50 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 21, 2021, 11:23:58 PM
Quote from: ThegeetDo 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.
I think that if I-45 were to be extended, maybe it can extend to Tulsa.
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.
Quote from: In_CorrectIt 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.
Quote from: sprjus4There'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.
Quote from: In_Correct on May 22, 2021, 11:56:33 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: In_Correct on May 24, 2021, 01:44:25 AM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 17, 2021, 05:30:50 PM
Yet another boondoggle :no:
Just like I-87 , I-73 and I-74 in NC.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 24, 2021, 12:49:49 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 17, 2021, 05:30:50 PM
Yet another boondoggle :no:
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 :-D
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.).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 24, 2021, 04:27:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Thegeet on May 22, 2021, 10:47:54 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.
Quote from: bwana39 on May 24, 2021, 04:40:58 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 24, 2021, 04:27:43 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 07, 2021, 01:48:07 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 07, 2021, 02:02:08 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 07, 2021, 01:48:07 PM
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.
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/
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 24, 2021, 04:27:43 PM
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
Quote from: TheBox on June 08, 2021, 08:16:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 24, 2021, 04:27:43 PM
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!
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.
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 08, 2021, 09:31:06 PM
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.
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)
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.
QuoteMore 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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpD1fBmnSAI
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).
Quote from: bwana39 on June 08, 2021, 05:57:22 PM
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.
Quote from: bwana39 on June 09, 2021, 08:00:20 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on June 08, 2021, 05:57:22 PM
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.
Quote from: sparker on May 21, 2021, 07:31:31 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.
Quote from: r15-1 on June 09, 2021, 10:17:17 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 21, 2021, 07:31:31 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.
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.
Quote from: skluth on May 17, 2021, 04:42:50 PM
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 (https://city.milwaukee.gov/DCD/Projects/ParkEastredevelopment/Park-East-History) or the east end of the Gardner Freeway in Toronto (https://www.toronto.ca/explore-enjoy/history-art-culture/online-exhibits/web-exhibits/web-exhibits-architecture-infrastructure/the-gardiner-expressway-east-comes-down/). I don't think tearing down I-345 (https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2021/04/a-new-plan-for-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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24983.0), and here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21756.0), and here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25140.0)) 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 wouldn't 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.
Extension is possible and it is overdue.
Quote from: nhoward45 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.
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 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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 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.
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.
Quote from: sparker on June 24, 2021, 03:37:08 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 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.
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
Quote from: rtXC1 on June 24, 2021, 04:16:06 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 24, 2021, 03:37:08 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 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.
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.
Quote from: Henry on May 25, 2021, 10:48:03 AM
Quote from: Thegeet on May 22, 2021, 10:47:54 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, I'd recommend the US-75 corridor to Tulsa, and maybe from there, concurrent with I-44 until US-69 in Afton.
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.
Quote from: In_Correct 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.
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.
Quote from: Road Hog on June 23, 2021, 08:32:29 PM
Quote from: nhoward45 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: In_CorrectDurant 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: sparker45W 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^
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.
Quote from: sparker 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.
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.
Quote from: bwana39 on June 25, 2021, 06:02:22 PM
Quote from: sparker 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Road Hog 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.
The INT north of US 69 would be the alignment for either a Tulsa realignment of a projected I-45 extension or a western branch of a routing sticking to US 69; an alternative route over US 75 from Atoka to Henryetta wouldn't make much sense as it's considerably longer and less direct.
Quote from: Road Hog 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.
Removing Tolls would make it cost more, not less.
Quote from: In_Correct on June 28, 2021, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: Road Hog 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.
Removing Tolls would make it cost more, not less.
Even though there's a congressional plan afoot to make the US 412 corridor an Interstate (see that dedicated thread for details), there's been no corresponding mention of any thought to removing tolls on either the Cimarron or Cherokee turnpikes, both of which are included in the proposal. It's equally likely that if part of the INT is included in I-45 extension plans, the tolls will remain; also, the portion of the facility within the scope of any plans (ostensibly north of US 69) would likely be modified/upgraded with a median barrier and shoulder work to satisfy minimal Interstate standards; retaining the tolls would certainly help to expedite such a project.
Quote from: sparker on June 28, 2021, 09:57:22 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on June 28, 2021, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: Road Hog 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.
Removing Tolls would make it cost more, not less.
Even though there's a congressional plan afoot to make the US 412 corridor an Interstate (see that dedicated thread for details), there's been no corresponding mention of any thought to removing tolls on either the Cimarron or Cherokee turnpikes, both of which are included in the proposal. It's equally likely that if part of the INT is included in I-45 extension plans, the tolls will remain; also, the portion of the facility within the scope of any plans (ostensibly north of US 69) would likely be modified/upgraded with a median barrier and shoulder work to satisfy minimal Interstate standards; retaining the tolls would certainly help to expedite such a project.
Most of I-44 is toll. The Will Rogers , Turner, and Bailey. Just because it is a tollway in OK does not mean it won't wear the Interstate shield. The rules say you can't pay for a toll road with interstate funds. It says you cannot convert a free Interstate to tolls later. But numbering existing toll roads as interstates is more than doable as long as they meet the FHWA standards for an interstate.
Quote from: bwana39 on June 29, 2021, 12:01:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 28, 2021, 09:57:22 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on June 28, 2021, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: Road Hog 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.
Removing Tolls would make it cost more, not less.
Even though there's a congressional plan afoot to make the US 412 corridor an Interstate (see that dedicated thread for details), there's been no corresponding mention of any thought to removing tolls on either the Cimarron or Cherokee turnpikes, both of which are included in the proposal. It's equally likely that if part of the INT is included in I-45 extension plans, the tolls will remain; also, the portion of the facility within the scope of any plans (ostensibly north of US 69) would likely be modified/upgraded with a median barrier and shoulder work to satisfy minimal Interstate standards; retaining the tolls would certainly help to expedite such a project.
Most of I-44 is toll. The Will Rogers , Turner, and Bailey. Just because it is a tollway in OK does not mean it won't wear the Interstate shield. The rules say you can't pay for a toll road with interstate funds. It says you cannot convert a free Interstate to tolls later. But numbering existing toll roads as interstates is more than doable as long as they meet the FHWA standards for an interstate.
The original two I-44 turnpikes, the Turner & Will Rogers, were "grandfathered" into the system although they hadn't been completed terribly long before the original Interstate legislation; the fact that some 26 years later the Bailey turnpike was added to that mix as an "add-on" corridor indicates that there has been no particular issue with signing existing turnpikes as Interstates as long as physical standards are met. Also, the recent push for the two turnpikes along US 412 to be added to the Interstate system further shows that the concept has not only longevity but current relevance. Although any northern extension of I-45 into OK is speculative at this time, if and when it occurs the prospect of utilizing at least part of the INT as a corridor option to Tulsa remains viable.
Here is a D magazine article from April: https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2021/04/a-new-plan-for-tearing-down-i-345/. What do you guys think of it? Even after reading the article, I still think tearing down Interstate 345 makes as much sense as trying to make water flow uphill.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 29, 2021, 03:23:09 PM
Here is a D magazine article from April: https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2021/04/a-new-plan-for-tearing-down-i-345/. What do you guys think of it? Even after reading the article, I still think tearing down Interstate 345 makes as much sense as trying to make water flow uphill.
Well, it's a little less strident than some RE/T-based articles out there, including some previous ones addressing this particular concept. The idea of at least maintaining some through submerged lanes seems to be posited on an equal footing to an outright removal/"boulevard" alternative; this is a step in a direction that at least doesn't primarily forward an "us versus them" approach with drivers/traffic being the dreaded "them" -- the needs of cross-town commuters are at least acknowledged. With yet another party chiming in, we'll just have to see if reason or emotion prevails at the end.
Since we are back on track, I am going to remind everyone to comment at the links below.
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.