Print

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

[jeffandnicole]

Would it have been possible to make the new US 175/Interstate 45 interchange a full interchange instead of a partial interchange? Or would that have been overkill?

There's not really much in that area except junk and scrap yards, a major UP (and others allowed) RR corridor, and the Trinity River bottoms.  Not much there that would be a barrier to having the other 2 movements.  Maybe in the future, they can be added.

Except that the land is still owned by someone, and the owner can make it a real headache to sell or be taken by the state

[-- US 175 --]

It's fortunate that there wasn't much ROW needed for the project.

[armadillo speedbump]

A north 45 to southeast 175 direct connector and vice versa would mostly be a pointless waste of money.  If one looks at a map they will see that most of the area in between is the floodplain for 2 branches of the Trinity River.  I think the government has bought out properties within that floodplain, thus no further development is expected to take place there.  The areas beyond that would be reached about as fast by simply using the existing Loop 12 river crossing (or I-20.)  So those missing direct connects are not needed.

Edit:  I should add, the area in question has been represented by brazenly corrupt politicians on all levels for my entire lifetime.  So it is still possible that wasteful, unneeded projects could be built, cuz pork.

[In_Correct]

 It would be better for the entire Interchange be constructed eventually. If they are going to move U.S. 175 there to get rid of the very sharp curve, I understand that, but they should have a complete Interchange.


As for the road north of the new, straighter, but partial Interchange: If the traffic is still high on it they should have kept the bridges and exits.

[dfwmapper]

The City of Dallas owns all the land, and the USACE has put in a lot of work in the last decade to build new wetlands to improve flood control and provide new wildlife habitats, as well as reforesting some areas. The final phase of the project is extending the levees south from the current end at the DART crossing to I-45 (north/east bank) and the water treatment plant (south/west bank). It's pretty easy to see a lot of potential section 4(f) issues if something ever got to the EIS phase, just from the wildlife impacts and all the planned trails through the area. Then there's the complete lack of local support for freeway projects in the riverbed after the tollway fiasco.

[usends]

Anyone aware of an updated opening date for the direct connectors between I-45 and US 175?  The document on the project website says it was expected to be open by the end of 2019, but it was published back in 2017.

[Chris]

The TxDOT project tracker may normally be of help, but strangely enough it doesn't feature this project: http://apps.dot.state.tx.us/apps-cq/project_tracker/

Unless it is already open to traffic?

[debragga]

I should be going through there in a few weeks, I'll be able to update. But I would think there would be some news about it online if it opened up already.

[-- US 175 --]

I've seen nothing in the local print or TV media that has announced any opening of the new US 175 terminus to traffic.  I would think something would have been said by either or both by now if so, simply from the amount of airplay that bad wrecks at the dead-man's-curve have gotten over the years, plus the debate over how exactly to arrange the parkway-boulevard that S.M. Wright will become.

[dfwmapper]

It wasn't open when I went by on I-45 last week, and they hadn't even striped the ramp yet. I'll be heading down US 175 in the next few days so I'll report back on the status.

[The Ghostbuster]

On the eastern end of US 175, I heard a rumor (can't remember where) that once more of Interstate 69 is constructed in Texas, US 69 between Jacksonville and Port Arthur will become an extension of US 175 to avoid confusion between Interstate 69 and US 69. Is this accurate, or is this rumor I once encountered an unsubstantiated one?

[-- US 175 --]

On the eastern end of US 175, I heard a rumor (can't remember where) that once more of Interstate 69 is constructed in Texas, US 69 between Jacksonville and Port Arthur will become an extension of US 175 to avoid confusion between Interstate 69 and US 69. Is this accurate, or is this rumor I once encountered an unsubstantiated one?

I've heard nothing officially about that.  Would be a great idea to not have 2 major east TX highways with the same numbering.  In a historical sense, it would be a partial full-circle as both US 175, and US 69 between Jacksonville and Beaumont, were part of the original TX 40 (before that designation was taken away, then used again later in College Station).  It would also tend to help the case of US 175 being currently too short for AASHTO, even though the designation has been around for nearly 90 years, with little change in length in all that time.

The only thing I've heard in the last few years was by way of conversation with an official or engineer at the Tyler TxDOT office.  He said there's been informal talk of possibly taking in the routing of TX 204 to extend US 175 further SE to connect to I-69; there was nothing specific as to an exact possible terminus, though (end at US 259 like TX 204 does, end with US 259 at US 59(/I-69) in north Nacogdoches, or a new routing somewhere else like Appleby (which would be the closest town to a further SE alignment from where TX 204 runs, if it continued east of US 259) so US 175 would have its own separate terminus on US 59(/I-69) without sharing an overlap with US 259).  In any event, if any extension like that were to occur, discussion would likely take place regarding widening, as US 175 is used quite a bit by truckers and is considered an important hurricane evacuation route.

So, consider it rumor for now I guess, till we find out differently later on.

[dfwmapper]

Took a trip through the construction zone today. Looks like all the paving of the main lanes is done, including the tie-ins to the existing pavement, which hadn't been completed the last time I was through. Most, but not all, of the center divider is up as well. The soundwalls along the south are complete, but they're only about half done on the north side, with the rest just having rebar in place. The new northbound lanes for SH 310 are mostly complete, but southbound just has part of the base course down and will probably need to wait for the new lanes to open so they can remove the existing pavement to progress further.

There are full closures of I-45 scheduled for tonight and Monday night, which I'd imagine are either to do striping or overhead signage work.

[motorola870]

A north 45 to southeast 175 direct connector and vice versa would mostly be a pointless waste of money.  If one looks at a map they will see that most of the area in between is the floodplain for 2 branches of the Trinity River.  I think the government has bought out properties within that floodplain, thus no further development is expected to take place there.  The areas beyond that would be reached about as fast by simply using the existing Loop 12 river crossing (or I-20.)  So those missing direct connects are not needed.

Edit:  I should add, the area in question has been represented by brazenly corrupt politicians on all levels for my entire lifetime.  So it is still possible that wasteful, unneeded projects could be built, cuz pork.

It is not waste. Why should a US route not have direct connectors from all directions to a Interstate? These days that is nonsense in most rebuilds they are adding them and extensions are getting them by default. I saw the construction in the currect form it is a waste looks to be rushed together and not even considering people in South Dallas needing a direct connect to go to Kaufman instead of having to drive south on I45 and east on I20. There is no reason for this. If TXDOT is going to remove the old freeway build the replacement right now instead of half way doing it that will need more ROW in 20 years. Cramming more traffic on to I20 and loop 12 is not a solution. I20 is already stressed as it is in the inner loops from Fort Worth to Mesquite at I635 split.

[dfwmapper]

If you're on Illinois near I-45, backtracking north on I-45 to go east on US 175 would add more time and distance to get to the US 175/I-20 interchange than going south on I-45 and east on I-20. And where are these mythical travelers between South Dallas (or more accurately, Cedar Crest) and Kaufman going anyway? Kaufman is a bedroom community with nothing that would pull in traffic from anywhere in Dallas except people going home. And on the Cedar Crest side, the only traffic driver of note is the VA hospital, which is too far south to see any benefit from those connectors. Anyone coming in from the south is either taking US 67/I-35E/I-45 to Loop 12 or I-20 to Lancaster Road, and anyone in the Pleasant Grove area is taking Loop 12.

[debragga]

Phase 1 will be done this weekend: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcdfw.com/news/traffic/dangerous-north-texas-intersection-known-as-dead-mans-curve-to-be-removed/2315655/%3famp

[-- US 175 --]

According to this:
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/traffic/dangerous-north-texas-intersection-known-as-dead-mans-curve-to-be-removed/2315655/

the long (**long**)-awaited fix to a 56-year-old problem seems to finally be in sight, as TxDOT crews are now in the process of switching US 175 traffic to the new connection and I-45 terminus.  The old interchange, which opened in January 1964, served as US 175's west terminus until US 75 was truncated to Dallas in 1988.  For the last 32 years, the previous terminus has become a dangerous dog-leg turn that many locals refer to as 'Dead Man's Curve', a transition between C.F. Hawn Freeway and S.M. Wright Freeway.  Thankfully, the wait for a solution seems to finally be over.

Now, the next phase, converting S.M. Wright Freeway to a parkway/boulevard, can commence.  Hopefully that work will progress and conclude smoothly.

[debragga]

My mom said she drove on the new ramp going east, but it was "all white with no marks and some barricades still up" so she wasn't sure if it was supposed to be open or not.

[D-Dey65]

The piece of road always struck me as being something that was just kind of bodged together over time using the major existing traffic carriers as they evolved.  That crossover should have been built when the original I-45 was built.

I agree, that is a freeway relocation, just like I-30 in downtown Fort Worth was a couple of decades ago, not a 'removal'.

Mike

If that wasn't the case, I'd bring up the hazards of Queens Boulevard as a comparison.

[bwana39]

They are supposed to be opeining it this weekend (01/21/2020)

Would it have been possible to make the new US 175/Interstate 45 interchange a full interchange instead of a partial interchange? Or would that have been overkill?

There's not really much in that area except junk and scrap yards, a major UP (and others allowed) RR corridor, and the Trinity River bottoms.  Not much there that would be a barrier to having the other 2 movements.  Maybe in the future, they can be added.

Except that the land is still owned by someone, and the owner can make it a real headache to sell or be taken by the state

[debragga]

I've been hearing that the eastbound ramp is now open, but westbound is not. Also any eastbound traffic that exits from I-45 too early and takes the soon-to-be-demolished freeway portion is forced to exit before Dead Man's Curve, with a long detour to get back to US 175.

[bwana39]

On the eastern end of US 175, I heard a rumor (can't remember where) that once more of Interstate 69 is constructed in Texas, US 69 between Jacksonville and Port Arthur will become an extension of US 175 to avoid confusion between Interstate 69 and US 69. Is this accurate, or is this rumor I once encountered an unsubstantiated one?

I probably started that one. It is the best option, but Lufkin TXDOT is set to keep it as is.
So while it will cause little to no confusion to we Texans who use the term Interstate XX whenever we mention an interstate (To us it would be Interstate 69 meeting Highway <or US> 69) To people from other areas, that call every road Route or Highway, it will be route (ROOT) 69 meeting Route 69.

I have been adamant that it should either be US 175, US 271, or in a drastic start over US 75.

[dfwmapper]

I've been hearing that the eastbound ramp is now open, but westbound is not. Also any eastbound traffic that exits from I-45 too early and takes the soon-to-be-demolished freeway portion is forced to exit before Dead Man's Curve, with a long detour to get back to US 175.

This is correct.

All SB traffic on S.M. Wright is forced to exit at Elsie Faye Heggins St. (formerly Hatcher St.). I don't know what the actual detour is, but I hope it's taking that to 2nd Ave., not driving through the neighborhood and using the Railroad Ave. entrance. For what it's worth, the BGSes along SB I-45 were replaced with new ones that only refer to S.M. Wright Freeway (no highway shield at all), and there's a portable VMS in the gore point at the exit directing SB US 175 traffic to use the new exit, but I didn't see any advance signage warning people of the change in traffic pattern.

[wxfree]

Google Maps now shows the eastbound ramp, but as of right now it won't give directions on it.

[X99]

Google Maps now shows the eastbound ramp, but as of right now it won't give directions on it.

Something tells me it's there now because someone updated that same ramp yesterday on OpenStreetMap. And by someone I mean me.