AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The next forum trivia night will take place on OCTOBER 30, 2019 at 8:15 PM Eastern.

Author Topic: Interstate 345/US 75 history  (Read 2332 times)

wxfree

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1101
  • Age: -1
  • Location: Over there
  • Last Login: Today at 07:32:18 PM
Interstate 345/US 75 history
« on: May 10, 2019, 10:44:04 PM »

As sometimes facts and figures escape me, I was just now again thinking about whether US 75 ends at Spur 366 or at I-30.  The designation file says that I-345 ends from I-30 to a connection with US 75 and SS 366.  That pretty definitively means that that the two roads are not concurrent.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/ih/ih0345.htm

Wanting to see more detail, I looked up the minute order, which doesn't even mention I-345 but describes how I-20 changed to I-30.  I then looked up the only minute order regarding US 75 since the 1939 redescription, in which the route was truncated.  I'm not a real history buff, but I was surprised to find out that the elevated freeway carrying I-345 never was US 75.  I have the 1984 highway map, which shows it this way, but I'd never noticed it.

The map can be seen here.  The version I have is a little newer and labels the eastern side of the couplet "Pearl."
https://tslarc.tsl.texas.gov/maps/map05814-005.jpg

When US 75 was truncated to Spur 366 in 1987, the discontinued route segments were assigned different designations, including the Pearl Expressway section through downtown, which was made SS 559.  This route was cancelled in 1991 and became Dallas city streets.  Until 1987 US 75 went through downtown.  I'd assume it was signed along the freeway, as it is today (until just now, I assumed it was along the freeway).  This makes me wonder how it was signed through downtown.  As a business route?

I always thought that I-345 was signed as US 75 for simplicity, and that the signs were outdated but historically accurate, but it turns out the road never carried that number and the signs are just wrong.

For the truncation minute order, scroll down to 85364 on page 26.
https://publicdocs.txdot.gov/minord/MinuteOrderDocLib/003674442.pdf
Logged
All of my posts represent my personal opinions and the official views of any governmental agency that has good sense.

TXtoNJ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 533
  • Last Login: December 06, 2019, 06:29:37 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #1 on: May 10, 2019, 10:56:52 PM »

Yes, there used to be Business 75 button copy BGS on Central Expy/Cesar Chavez until about 15ish years ago.
Logged

wxfree

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1101
  • Age: -1
  • Location: Over there
  • Last Login: Today at 07:32:18 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #2 on: May 10, 2019, 11:00:24 PM »

Yes, there used to be Business 75 button copy BGS on Central Expy/Cesar Chavez until about 15ish years ago.

That's recent enough for me to remember, but back then my interest in roads was just an interest that I didn't actively pursue beyond collecting maps.
Logged
All of my posts represent my personal opinions and the official views of any governmental agency that has good sense.

wxfree

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1101
  • Age: -1
  • Location: Over there
  • Last Login: Today at 07:32:18 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #3 on: May 10, 2019, 11:08:50 PM »

The site where I found that map is a good resource, but can be a bit of a pain to use if you aren't familiar with it.  I had a bit of a time figuring it out.  Here are the instructions.  Go to the main page.

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/apps/arc/maps/

Enter your search terms.  I type in a county name, because I'm really only interested in county highway maps, but you can type in a city as well.  If you hit "Search", it will show the full inventory of maps.  If you select "Image" first it will show only maps that can be viewed online.  The county highway detail maps are where it gets challenging.  I entered "Dallas" and selected "Image" and hit "Search" and then selected 05814, "General Highway Map. Detail of Cities and Towns in Dallas County, Texas."  For each set of detail maps, there's only one entry on the results page.  It starts at the northwest corner of the county.  If you click the picture, it will open that map.  If you click the number, it will show you that northwest map thumbnail again.  The trick is to scroll down to the bottom of the page.  There, it will show the thumbnails for the other detail maps of that county.  You look at each one and estimate or guess which shows the part of the county you want, and then click the picture (not the number).
Logged
All of my posts represent my personal opinions and the official views of any governmental agency that has good sense.

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 293
  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:27 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2019, 09:54:49 AM »

Simplicity? I Simply Call It The Unfinished Corridor. (Unfinished Interstate 45).
Logged

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1120
  • Location: Warr Acres, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 09:25:54 AM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2019, 01:39:55 PM »

I can remember in the 60's traveling from OK to Houston. Central Expressway at the southern end gave you 2 choices to proceed south, either "Central" or "Good-Latimer". Since both were surface streets, I was never sure what the difference was as they came back together just south of I-30
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2391
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: December 05, 2019, 02:53:42 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2019, 04:53:20 PM »

As fascinating as the history of Interstate 345/US 75 would be, I'd be more interested in what is in store for the future of these highways. Will "A New Dallas" get their wish in removing 345? I think Dallas would be nuts to remove 345, but I'm not the one making the decisions. Although it's been 5 years since the 345 removal plan was first announced, I suspect they will not proceed with demolishing it, but I could be wrong.
Logged

Brian556

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2210
  • Location: Lewisville, TX
  • Last Login: December 07, 2019, 11:32:31 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #7 on: May 11, 2019, 07:46:38 PM »

Also, US 75 once ran through the west end of Downtown
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1913
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: December 07, 2019, 11:44:58 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #8 on: May 13, 2019, 04:32:01 PM »

Quote from: The Ghostbuster
As fascinating as the history of Interstate 345/US 75 would be, I'd be more interested in what is in store for the future of these highways. Will "A New Dallas" get their wish in removing 345? I think Dallas would be nuts to remove 345, but I'm not the one making the decisions. Although it's been 5 years since the 345 removal plan was first announced, I suspect they will not proceed with demolishing it, but I could be wrong.

I'm hoping they don't completely remove the freeway segment between I-30 and Woodall Rodgers Freeway. I think it would yield pretty severe consequences in traffic loads for I-30 and I-35E through the recently completed "Horseshoe." There is quite a bit of traffic coming up toward downtown Dallas from I-45. Add to that the C.F. Hawn Freeway (US-175) and improvements happening there as it merges into I-45. Not all the vehicles are leaving the freeway right at downtown; plenty continue on up North Central to points farther North. Remove the existing un-signed I-345 freeway by Deep Ellum and it will be like hitting a dead end for all that traffic. Those vehicles either have to go way around the Horseshoe and the Woodall Rodgers Freeway to get back to North Central Expressway. Or, if the vehicles are coming up from far enough outside of town, they'll have to take I-20 and I-635 way around.

The best thing, but also most expensive, would be removing the existing elevated freeway next to Deep Ellum and replacing it with a new freeway depressed into a trench and preferably capped with a deck park. It would be like the 3 block long deck park over the top of the Woodall Rodgers freeway, but longer.

Replacing the elevated freeway with a surface boulevard pigged with lots of street light signals would really suck. But that may end up being what happens.
Logged

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 293
  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:27 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2019, 05:52:36 PM »

They should not have designed that even at Amarillo. It is bad enough with the numerous towns with highways that split into one way streets through down towns. Dallas is way too large for that.

Interstate 345 is a necessary Bridge over more than just roads. The span of this bridge really is not that long: An interchange, several rail roads, and another interchange. Several city streets in between them is a coincidence.

Interstate 345 Trench would require digging under the freight rail roads and moveing the passenger subway tunnels. (also the passenger rail should be grade separated also. We need more grade separations. Not less.)

It would also require reconstruction of the Interchanges for S.H. 366 and Interstate 30. This should not be a problem. TX DOT loves to expand Interchanges.

As for a concrete deck park: That can be constructed much later. One thing at a time. First the roads have to be dug, but since they built Klyde Warren Park, a park over The Unfinished Corridor between Elm Street and Canton Street would be possible. The rest of it is Curved, near Rail Lines, or Interchanges.

And I am not going to visit the silly gentrified "Sit Down Restaurant" neighbourhood even if they trench The Unfinished Corridor. 
« Last Edit: May 14, 2019, 02:07:45 AM by In_Correct »
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1913
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: December 07, 2019, 11:44:58 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #10 on: May 14, 2019, 08:16:07 PM »

Regarding Amarillo, the downtown area was built like it was long before any Interstate routes were built there. It's not practical to build a freeway through downtown Amarillo. If I-27 is to be extended North from Amarillo it will have to be routed on the Western half of the city's loop. And that appears to be the direction they're going.

Regarding subway tunnels, there aren't any subway lines in the zone between downtown Dallas and Deep Ellum. The light rail lines are running at grade in that zone. One of the train lines does go underneath North Central Expressway just North of Woodall Rodgers Freeway, but that's it.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2391
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: December 05, 2019, 02:53:42 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #11 on: May 15, 2019, 04:05:56 PM »

Does anyone think Interstate 345 should have been signposted? Or would it be like US 27/Interstate 124 in Chattanooga, US 131/Interstate 296 in Grand Rapids, and US 50/US 301/Interstate 595 between New Carrollton, MD and Annapolis, MD (among other unsigned 3dis)? An unnecessary duplication of existing designations?
Logged

wxfree

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1101
  • Age: -1
  • Location: Over there
  • Last Login: Today at 07:32:18 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #12 on: May 15, 2019, 08:45:10 PM »

Does anyone think Interstate 345 should have been signposted? Or would it be like US 27/Interstate 124 in Chattanooga, US 131/Interstate 296 in Grand Rapids, and US 50/US 301/Interstate 595 between New Carrollton, MD and Annapolis, MD (among other unsigned 3dis)? An unnecessary duplication of existing designations?

I agree with the decision not to sign it.  It doesn't end like a spur or in any way give the sense that it's a separate road.  Aside from the glaring technical violation, having it signed as US 75 going north and as I-45 going south makes navigation easier.
Logged
All of my posts represent my personal opinions and the official views of any governmental agency that has good sense.

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 293
  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:27 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #13 on: May 16, 2019, 11:38:10 AM »

Instead of Signing it, they should Finish it. And the entire route should have one designation: Interstate 45.

And they need to finish The Unfinished Corridor now. If they wait, I really doubt that they will be able to finish it by 2035.

Either solution will take decades to build. They can Finish burying "Interstate 345" which will take a long time.

If they try S.H. 366 as a permanent alternative route, It will need to be a multiple deck highway, which is some thing that people will want to demolish.  :banghead:

I would not be surprised if after they bury Interstate 345, they will need to multiple deck it.    :biggrin:

I agree that Interstate 345 is too many designations. Previously I was unable to find Interstate 345. When ever some body mentioned they want to keep Interstate 345, I was looking for spurs designed to stop traffic congestion. I am alarmed that Interstate 345 is simply an Interchange & Rail Bridge of The Unfinished Corridor and that people would be okay with destroying it as well as part of a highway system servicing half a Billion people.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1913
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: December 07, 2019, 11:44:58 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2019, 03:07:43 PM »

Quote from: In_Correct
And they need to finish The Unfinished Corridor now. If they wait, I really doubt that they will be able to finish it by 2035.

Texas' part is getting close to completion, at least with regards to the section of US-75 going North out of Dallas up to the Red River. Downtown Dallas is another can of worms. The big difficulty with "The Unfinished Corridor" is within Oklahoma. It's pretty clear US-75 will eventually be improved to full Interstate standards at least up to Durant. The freeway upgrade project in Calera and up by Choctaw Casino will take care of a big chunk of that.

Improvement projects along the US-69/75 corridor will be much slower North of Durant. There are at least plans for freeway upgrades in McAlester and Muskogee. But the obstructionist towns like Atoka and Stringtown will do their best to keep "The Unfinished Corridor" unfinished. On the sort of bright side, most counties in Oklahoma are losing population; only the metros of OKC & Tulsa are gaining any population at all. These little towns with their rapidly aging populations and little opportunity for working age adults appear to have a bleak long term future. By the year 2035 a bunch of those currently occupied homes in Atoka and Stringtown will be vacant, maybe boarded up, falling into ruin or even bulldozed. By then the remaining residents will be begging for anything (such as a new Interstate) to help put those communities back on the map.
Logged

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 293
  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:27 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #15 on: May 17, 2019, 08:16:41 PM »

An Interstate 45 upgrade to Caddo could be done easily.

But I won't consider it Finished until they include Downtown Dallas. It is not that difficult to replace a bridge with a trench.

If the Deep Ellum advocates want it to beautify it, they can build a Deck Park. If They want it done faster, then They can pay for it them selves.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1913
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: December 07, 2019, 11:44:58 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #16 on: May 17, 2019, 11:22:57 PM »

Quote from: In_Correct
An Interstate 45 upgrade to Caddo could be done easily.

Up to Caddo, yes, relatively easy. No extra ROW required, no properties to buy and clear. From Durant to Caddo is limited access already. Upgrades to shoulders (including on a few bridges) would be necessary and maybe some upgrades to the geometry of a couple on/off ramps might also be necessary.

Freeway upgrades farther up to the South side of Tushka would be also be relatively easy since enough ROW is already preserved for both frontage roads and a freeway. The zone thru Tushka, Atoka and Stringtown is politically difficult. Bypasses would be required but those towns apparently have enough pull politically to block any bypass efforts. The corridor seriously needs to be upgraded to Interstate quality nonetheless due to the traffic load, particularly that from heavy trucks.

Downtown Dallas is a wildcard. Even if I-45 was extended into Oklahoma up to Tulsa or Big Cabin (I think Big Cabin is better and more do-able), there is a serious chance the potential I-45 corridor thru Downtown Dallas could be severed. That would probably force an I-45 re-routing into LBJ Freeway or even an extended George Bush Turnpike.

I don't think interests in Deep Ellum or Downtown Dallas on their own would be interested in anything else but tearing down the existing elevated freeway and turning it into a surface street. A trenched freeway capped with a deck park would actually be more beneficial to drivers farther out into the suburbs. So I would never expect downtown people to put up the money for such a thing. I wish the federal government wasn't as AWOL as it is on major infrastructure projects these days.
Logged

RoadMaster09

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 232
  • Last Login: September 30, 2019, 07:14:17 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #17 on: May 18, 2019, 12:00:58 AM »

How far north could I-45 be signed today if Texas and/or Oklahoma wanted to sign it? (In other words, at what point does it cease to be Interstate standard.)

I know the freeway ends at Colbert, OK.
Logged

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 293
  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:27 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #18 on: May 18, 2019, 06:35:27 AM »

We have 12 years according to Project Tracker before they "Reconstruct Existing Roadway". If only Deep Ellum could decrease just as the smaller towns in Oklahoma the highways can be improved and upgraded faster.
Logged

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8876
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 06:37:57 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #19 on: May 18, 2019, 11:41:41 AM »

How far north could I-45 be signed today if Texas and/or Oklahoma wanted to sign it? (In other words, at what point does it cease to be Interstate standard.)

I know the freeway ends at Colbert, OK.

In theory, all they would have to do is close the at-grade crossings south of Calera.
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 293
  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:27 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2019, 01:34:59 PM »

But that would "Destroy" neighbourhoods.

Mean while, McAlester and Calera are against trenching. Instead they have plans to elevate The Unfinished Corridor.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1913
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: December 07, 2019, 11:44:58 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #21 on: May 18, 2019, 07:33:40 PM »

Quote from: RoadMaster09
How far north could I-45 be signed today if Texas and/or Oklahoma wanted to sign it? (In other words, at what point does it cease to be Interstate standard.)

When current projects in the works are completed I-45 could potentially be signed up to Durant, OK and the US-70 bypass. Even though Interstate quality upgrades to Caddo would be easy I-45 would still have to end at US-70 due to current signing rules.

Quote from: In_Correct
Mean while, McAlester and Calera are against trenching. Instead they have plans to elevate The Unfinished Corridor.

Trenching is unnecessary in both locations. Neither project will be entirely elevated either. The main lanes just need to be bridged over key intersections and new slip ramps need to be built between the main lanes and frontage roads (much of which already exist).

BTW, the zone between Colbert and Calera has most properties already set back behind partial frontage road segments. Some at-grade crossings would have to be closed and maybe new bridges built over the US-69/75 main lanes. Chickasaw Road is the South end of the Calera freeway upgrade project. That intersection would probably need its own exit. Platte Cutoff Road would probably need an exit and bridge over the main lanes as well. There's a big salvage yard and manufactured home business pretty close to the Northbound lanes. Some things would have to be shifted around to fit freeway main lanes and continuous frontage roads through there.
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5190
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: December 07, 2019, 10:34:54 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #22 on: May 20, 2019, 09:21:07 AM »

I, too, was surprised to learn that US 75 has never been routed onto I-345, and I also agree that it is a stupid designation to start with, being that it's a basic continuation of its parent route. But it would be even more stupid to demolish the spur, because that could be a valuable part of any I-45 extension. I'd like to see it finished up to at least Checotah (where it would junction I-40), if not further.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 293
  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:27 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #23 on: May 20, 2019, 03:47:50 PM »

It Is Not A Spur.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1913
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: December 07, 2019, 11:44:58 PM
Re: Interstate 345/US 75 history
« Reply #24 on: May 21, 2019, 02:44:12 PM »

Quote from: Henry
I'd like to see it finished up to at least Checotah (where it would junction I-40), if not further.

I don't think Checotah is far enough an extension of I-45. I think the Interstate should follow US-69 past Checotah and up until it meets I-44 at Big Cabin. I believe that's a more natural destination, considering the high amount of commercial trucking traffic on that corridor. I don't see I-40 being as significant a long distance destination since long haul traffic coming up from the DFW region and going to the I-40 corridor would more likely take I-30 to Little Rock or US-287 to Amarillo.

If the segment from Atoka thru Stringtown and on up to McAlester was all brought up to Interstate quality (bypasses in some places obviously) then I-45 could at least be temporarily signed up to I-40. I just think it's more natural for it to go Big Cabin. It would also be acceptable to send I-45 up to Tulsa. But I think that's a more diffcult upgrade propsect. Upgrading US-75 thru Henryetta is a little tricky. Olkmulgee would require a substantial bypass. The Glenpool area on the South side of the Tulsa metro presents its own difficulties. And then there's the problem of all that truck traffic likely staying on US-69.
Logged

 


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