AARoads Forum

The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority has released plans for a $892 million turnpike package called Driving Forward OK. The turnpikes will be funded by OTA revenue bonds and will not require any expenditures from the state budget.

Included in the package are:

• A new north-south toll road in eastern Oklahoma County, connecting the Turner Turnpike (I-44) with I-40 between Midwest City and Shawnee.
• An extension of the Kilpatrick Turnpike to SH-152 between Mustang and Will Rogers Airport.
• Construction of SH-12, completing the Gilcrease loop around west Tulsa.
• Reconstruction of 9½ miles of the Muskogee Turnpike (SH-351) between the Creek Turnpike (SH-364) and SH-51 near Coweta.
• Reconstruction of 22 miles of I-44 between SH-48 near Bristow and SH-364 in Sapulpa.
• Reconstruction of 7½ miles of the H.E. Bailey Turnpike between Bridge Creek and Newcastle.

Construction is expected to begin third quarter of 2016, which seems frankly insane, especially since no ROW has been acquired nor EISes filed, but I guess they mean that that's when they can start the reconstruction projects. I have doubts that they can have work starting on the new-terrain stuff by this time next year...

http://www.drivingforwardok.com/

Have any alignments been selected for the new stretches of roadway?  It will be extremely difficult to squeeze in a Kilpatrick Turnpike extension, and even the I-44-to-I-40 turnpike on the east side of OKC looks like a tough problem unless it's pushed pretty far to the east.

Not as far as I know. The Oklahoma County control section map book has showed a Projected & Surveyed control section for the Kilpatrick extension for a few years, but the I-44-to-I-40 turnpike is an idea that I've never heard of until today. Fortunately, the eastern part of Oklahoma County has a fairly low population density, so it shouldn't be terribly hard to come up with an alignment. Tooling around on Google Maps, looks like the Peebly Road corridor might make a decent option.

These two projects make it look like OTA really wants to make an Oklahoma City beltway happen eventually.

I was expecting this thread title to refer to an inexplicable sign legend.   

I wonder if they're going to arrange the new 40 to 44 turnpike as an extension of 240, as, along with the Kilpatrick extension, this would complete the beltway around OKC.

"Driving Backwards Inferior"

Quote from: SteveG1988 on October 30, 2015, 02:58:51 PM
"Driving Backwards Inferior"

Dammit Steve Gum.

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 30, 2015, 05:06:49 AM
Not as far as I know. The Oklahoma County control section map book has showed a Projected & Surveyed control section for the Kilpatrick extension for a few years, but the I-44-to-I-40 turnpike is an idea that I've never heard of until today. Fortunately, the eastern part of Oklahoma County has a fairly low population density, so it shouldn't be terribly hard to come up with an alignment. Tooling around on Google Maps, looks like the Peebly Road corridor might make a decent option.

According to the site, no routes have been chosen for the 3 new pikes.  There's really no other route for OK12 other than the one that has been on maps since the 60's.  The Kilpatrick west extension will be interesting.  There is no chance it will hook into OK152 at a point that would be convenient to continue south on OK4 to the Bailey. 

Apologies in advance for such a long post. Hopefully it won't be TL;DR for too many here.

Quote from: drivingforwardok.comIncluded in the package are:

- A new north-south toll road in eastern Oklahoma County, connecting the Turner Turnpike (I-44) with I-40 between Midwest City and Shawnee.
- An extension of the Kilpatrick Turnpike to SH-152 between Mustang and Will Rogers Airport.
- Construction of SH-12, completing the Gilcrease loop around west Tulsa.
- Reconstruction of 9½ miles of the Muskogee Turnpike (SH-351) between the Creek Turnpike (SH-364) and SH-51 near Coweta.
- Reconstruction of 22 miles of I-44 between SH-48 near Bristow and SH-364 in Sapulpa.
- Reconstruction of 7½ miles of the H.E. Bailey Turnpike between Bridge Creek and Newcastle.

The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority says these projects should start by the 3rd Quarter of 2016. That may seem fast, but some projects were already in the works for years. The new terrain routes seem ambitious, but at the same time I'm very pessimistic about them having any chance of being built due to the very stupid, short-sighted methods ODOT and OTA have been using to plan and build new turnpikes or freeways.

Metro OKC is growing pretty rapidly. Check out the historical imagery slider in Google Earth. Mustang, Yukon, Moore and other suburban areas are developing out pretty fast. The pace of this development will easily over-shoot the painfully slow process of getting new terrain superhighways built.

If the OTA and ODOT actually want to have any chance of completing new beltways around the OKC and Tulsa metro areas they're going to have to use a lot of that bond money to acquire right of way as soon as freaking possible. Unfortunately there's bunch of places where the prospective ROW is already developed. OTA and ODOT is just going to have to buy up those homes, businesses, churches, etc. that are already in the way in some of these corridors.

Several years ago some idiot allowed a developer to build a housing addition directly in the way of the current Southwest end of the Kilpatrick Turnpike. Now most of those houses will have to be razed for any Kilpatrick extension to happen, whether it goes to Airport Road for a very mediocre extension or where it should have went 15 years ago: along OK-4 and OK-9 to I-35 in Norman.

I realize a lot of Oklahomans don't want to copy any ideas used by Texas. Unfortunately it's painfully stupid not to be copying how Texas has reserved freeway/tollway corridors over the past few decades. They just build a divided, surface level street with a huge median. That doesn't cost nearly as much as building an entirely new freeway or toll road. But it gets the property reserved for the long haul. Oklahoma City and its suburbs should have already been copying this approach for 30 years or longer.

They should have built freeway wide divided surface streets for OK-4 and OK-9 South of Oklahoma City. The same goes for OK-74 going North into Edmond and perhaps curving East to I-35. ODOT and OTA may still have to do that to give any of these new turnpikes or turnpike extensions any chance of becoming a reality.

I think it's going to take most of that bond money just buying up property and securing ROW. If they don't start that process in earnest they're going to be spending billions getting these things done in the future.

Some thoughts on the H.E. Bailey Turnpike part of this project:

I don't quite understand just what the drivingforwardok web site is describing with H.E. Bailey Turnpike improvements. They're talking about "toll plaza modernization" in N. Meridian Ave. at I-44 near Newcastle. The trouble is there's no toll plaza there. The one toll plaza on that section of the turnpike is 10 miles Southwest, and that plaza is already somewhat modernized. It has single, high speed PikePass lanes that bypass to the outside of the plaza. Maybe that plaza could use two high speed PikePass lanes in each direction.

Meanwhile the two other toll plazas on the H.E. Bailey Turnpike, one South of Chickasha and the other at the OK-5 exit near Walters, both BADLY need to be replaced. Those two toll plazas have minimal capacity. Worse yet: PikePass customers have a single inside left lane that requires the driver to slow down to 20mph or 30mph. They need to rebuild these plazas with two thru PikePass high speed lanes in both directions. It doesn't matter to me if the PikePass lanes are built in the center or flank the outsides of the toll plaza.

I heard of one plan that said the Chickasha plaza would be replaced with a modern plaza in 2016. The Walters toll plaza is more complicated since the existing one is built under the OK-5 bridge in a cloverleaf exit. I don't know the plans for the new Walters toll plaza, but if I had to guess I think OTA would build a new plaza just South of the OK-5 exit, re-build the OK-5 bridge over I-44 and then install Pike Pass readers on the ramps to/from OK-5. That project isn't supposed to happen until 2018.

A few miles of I-44 South of Newcastle does need to be rebuilt. The road isn't in good shape. Making matters worse, there are large curbs right on the left edge of the left lane. Those curbs need to be removed. It's one thing to do a "curb check" in a residential neighborhood or parking lot. It's another thing entirely at 80mph!

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 31, 2015, 11:43:12 AM
Apologies in advance for such a long post. Hopefully it won't be TL;DR for too many here.

Quote from: drivingforwardok.comIncluded in the package are:

- A new north-south toll road in eastern Oklahoma County, connecting the Turner Turnpike (I-44) with I-40 between Midwest City and Shawnee.
- An extension of the Kilpatrick Turnpike to SH-152 between Mustang and Will Rogers Airport.
- Construction of SH-12, completing the Gilcrease loop around west Tulsa.
- Reconstruction of 9½ miles of the Muskogee Turnpike (SH-351) between the Creek Turnpike (SH-364) and SH-51 near Coweta.
- Reconstruction of 22 miles of I-44 between SH-48 near Bristow and SH-364 in Sapulpa.
- Reconstruction of 7½ miles of the H.E. Bailey Turnpike between Bridge Creek and Newcastle.

Some thoughts on the H.E. Bailey Turnpike part of this project:
<snipped>
I heard of one plan that said the Chickasha plaza would be replaced with a modern plaza in 2016.......

It's my understanding that OTA will move the toll plaza a little farther west to accommodate the long-awaited US 81 Chickasha bypass. 

I didn't know anything about proposed US-81 bypasses of Chickasha, Minco, Union City, etc.

Being in Lawton, I can't help but say it would piss me off a good bit if Chickasha got what looks like in the ODOT PDF a limited access bypass loop while Lawton has no such plans, but is badly in need of serious improvements and some key opportunities are currently available. Lawton is a much bigger city than Chickasha. Hell, Norman doesn't even have an Interstate quality loop. On top of that US-81 approaching I-44 from the South already has freaking frontage roads!

For the sake of moving traffic efficiently on I-44, OTA needs to make those toll booth upgrades at Chickasha and Walters a priority.

ODOT needs to look at the Rogers Lane corridor in Lawton. US-62 is routed on it now. Thankfully they did some upgrades to the Fort Sill Blvd and Sheridan Road interchanges to make them far less dangerous. But they really need to upgrade that corridor into a full blown Interstate quality facility. Development out on Lawton's West side is going to put a bunch more traffic on that glorified street, which doesn't even have any shoulders. There's plenty of empty space on the North side of Roger's Lane to expand that road. But it's not going to be there forever. ODOT, the US DOT and the DOD need to have some conversations about this.

Lawton has a committee of civic leaders looking at options to expand Cache Road (Lawton's "main street") to accommodate growth. But there's just no room at all for any expansion of that six lane street. The emphasis needs to be put on upgrading Rogers Lane. I also think they could build a Southern bypass around Lawton to I-44, but just start it out as a surface street with enough reserved ROW for the future. That kind of thing will get tougher to build as more housing additions dot up in various places on Lawton's SW side.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 01, 2015, 07:07:15 PM
I didn't know anything about proposed US-81 bypasses of Chickasha, Minco, Union City, etc.

Being in Lawton, I can't help but say it would piss me off a good bit if Chickasha got what looks like in the ODOT PDF a limited access bypass loop while Lawton has no such plans, but is badly in need of serious improvements and some key opportunities are currently available. Lawton is a much bigger city than Chickasha. Hell, Norman doesn't even have an Interstate quality loop. On top of that US-81 approaching I-44 from the South already has freaking frontage roads!

The current configuration of US81 was built in the early 60's.  There was a pattern of doing limited frontage roads on 81 (see near Twin Oaks golf course in Duncan).  At least ODOT knew enough to do that to prevent the huge # of accidents that would have resulted without them.

If you look at 81 just SE of the OK 19 junction, you will see how the road was built for the future bypass:
   https://goo.gl/maps/PdFSpXiorDT2
That bypass has been on the books for over 50 years and is truly needed.  I'm also glad to see it will be limited access.

While I can't deny the need for Rogers Lane improvements, they shouldn't come at the expense of other, long delayed projects.  As to a south Lawton bypass, I don't believe there is much of a demand for it.  If I lived in Altus and needed to go to Wichita Falls, I would drop down to 287 rather than going through Lawton.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 06, 2015, 11:57:21 PM
Oklahoma is still a very "red" state politically. When I was a kid I thought "red" equaled communist; I'm not sure exactly when that changed. Anyway, Oklahoma is politically "red" and pretty redneck across much of the state. A lot Oklahomans look at efforts to make cities and towns more walk-able, efforts to build bike paths and efforts to build up alternative modes of transportation as a socialist conspiracy. Or it's at the very least a tree-hugging pansy thing to do. It's tough to convince most Oklahomans about the value of things like sidewalks and bike paths. There's no convincing a lot of those people even if one brings up the fact big businesses use things like walk-ability to evaluate cities and towns on whether or not they'll build a new location there.

There's actually been some push toward more walkability in the OKC urban core lately (that is, the loop bounded by I-44, I-235, and I-40). Midtown OKC, which falls in this loop, is the "cool" place to live now. There have been some projects to make the central business district in particular more pedestrian friendly; look up "Project 180" if you're interested in that. (This has also given us strange horizontal stoplights in a city otherwise uniformly vertical, but other than that it seems okay.)

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 06, 2015, 11:57:21 PM
Oklahoma is still a very "red" state politically. When I was a kid I thought "red" equaled communist; I'm not sure exactly when that changed.

In danger of answering a question nobody asked: red for parties of the political left goes back to the French revolution, when red was the revolutionary's color and blue was the royalist's.  In the U.S., red was the color of socialists and then Democrats and blue was the color of Federalists and then Republicans.  But in the 1970s and later there was no particular pattern in the U.S. and the electoral college maps produced every four years would switch red and blue between networks and between elections.  It was in the Florida recounts of the 2000 election that use of red for Republicans and blue for Democrats became a widespread convention of all the TV networks and the "red state" and "blue state" phrases became widely used.

Oh, I'm certainly quite aware. Even college town Norman is fairly bad for walkability when you get away from the campus/downtown areas. (Part of that is because of Norman's asinine policy of not requiring sidewalks on undeveloped lots, so sidewalks start and stop at random whenever you pass by a vacant lot.) The point, though, is to illustrate that despite Oklahoma's political stereotype, there are a few people here interested in this sort of thing. I'd expect that these movements are going to start to gel as more and more people move into Midtown/Downtown OKC and residents will start to demand real improvements. It may even spread as other parts of the city see it and say "Midtown gets this cool stuff, why can't we?"

I think one key to at least having pockets of walk-able, bicycle friendly areas in other Oklahoma towns & cities is mixed use development.

There are civic & business leaders in Lawton who want the downtown area of Lawton to be transformed in some of the same ways the MAPS program allowed parts of Oklahoma City's core to be transformed. But they goofed on the details -along with the effort being about as ill-timed as it could have ever been: right at the time the criminally insane housing bubble finally burst and took down the economy with it.

Lawton finally got something developed on 2nd Street, but it's far from being what should have been built. The 2nd Street area North of Central Mall got a new strip shopping center with a few Big Box stores, a new Hilton Garden Inn hotel, a big parking lot and not much else. I could go there to buy some new clothes at Kohl's or some running shoes at Dick's Sporting Goods. But then I leave right after doing that. There's nothing there to get me to stay in that part of town for hours. There's no entertainment options. Restaurant choices are very limited there (no recognizable restaurant chains either). One of the worst things: there's NONE of the night life, coffee shops, art galleries and other stuff one would expect in a downtown area that really functioned as the city center. Finally, there's NO mixed use development at all. Very few people actually live in the downtown zone.

Lawton has a bad reputation for crime, one which I think is greatly exaggerated by both locals and others state wide. Statistics show Lawton was actually at its worst back in the early 1970's (it's record of 18 homicides was set in 1973). But this was a time before Central Mall was built. Lawton had a real night life scene in the downtown area, but there was both good and bad to it. The mall erased all of it, replacing it with blandness during day time and crickets chirping at night. Even after the new 2nd Street shopping center was built Lawton is dead downtown after dark.

If anything, Lawton is just getting more galvanized in its car culture. Virtually all new home construction is taking place farther and farther from the city center. That's making things like upgrading Rogers Lane to Interstate quality more of a necessity. With no efforts to build up any mixed use development downtown, and really no new residential homes, apartments, etc. getting built there either that works against the plans to build bike paths in Lawton. People like Lon Parks have been working for more than 20 years trying to get a bike path network started in Lawton. The effort is still in its baby steps.

Too many city leaders in Lawton lack the kind of backbone to come up with a good, specific plan and hard-line enforce it into reality. They just let businesses and individuals do whatever they want to do in random fashion. Even the new 2nd Street big box shopping center had little if any tenant plan to it. Freaking Dollar Tree is the biggest tenant in the 2 outparcel buildings next to 2nd Street. Face-palm.

I don't know all that much about Lawton and how it functions, but it seems to me that building Central Mall was a huge mistake. OKC made a similar misstep a decade earlier with I.M. Pei's downtown redevelopment plan that led to the destruction of countless historic buildings, but some good came out of that in the form of the Myriad Gardens and what is now the Cox Convention Center (which is in the process of being relocated). The Pei Plan never really generated the downtown retail that it was intended to, and as a result the expected downtown residential developments never happened.

Downtown OKC languished in this state (compounded by a poor economy in the 1980s due to the state of the oil industry and local banking crises) until the city got a shock to its system when it was passed up for a commercial airline maintenance facility in favor of Indianapolis, with the quality of that city's downtown area cited as a specific reason why it was chosen over OKC. That lead to the MAPS program.

I have read the comments so far with interest since Kansas (as a neighboring red state) has struggled with similar issues in urban areas.  Wichita has been trying to improve conditions for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users, at a glacial pace and with minimum funding, but little active opposition until very recently.  Now the governing majority on the Sedgwick County Commission is led by a goldbug and Murray Rothbard devotee who said just two days ago that roads and bridges are a "core responsibility" of government and improvements for other modes are expensive frills for small numbers of users.  This attitude really complicates things since the county writes the TIP along with the city of Wichita.

Where Oklahoma is concerned, I would agree that a $900 million turnpike program that (to the extent it serves urban areas) largely benefits long-distance urban commuters isn't a step in the right direction.  However, I also don't get the impression it will offset chronic underinvestment in the highway system, especially given the percentage of the headline price tag that will be absorbed by costs related to planning failure (chiefly higher ROW acquisition costs due to failure to reserve ROW).  In Kansas the current T-WORKS program is about ten times the size for about half of the population base.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 31, 2015, 11:43:12 AM
Apologies in advance for such a long post. Hopefully it won't be TL;DR for too many here.

Quote from: drivingforwardok.comIncluded in the package are:

- A new north-south toll road in eastern Oklahoma County, connecting the Turner Turnpike (I-44) with I-40 between Midwest City and Shawnee.
- An extension of the Kilpatrick Turnpike to SH-152 between Mustang and Will Rogers Airport.
- Construction of SH-12, completing the Gilcrease loop around west Tulsa.
- Reconstruction of 9½ miles of the Muskogee Turnpike (SH-351) between the Creek Turnpike (SH-364) and SH-51 near Coweta.
- Reconstruction of 22 miles of I-44 between SH-48 near Bristow and SH-364 in Sapulpa.
- Reconstruction of 7½ miles of the H.E. Bailey Turnpike between Bridge Creek and Newcastle.

The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority says these projects should start by the 3rd Quarter of 2016. That may seem fast, but some projects were already in the works for years. The new terrain routes seem ambitious, but at the same time I'm very pessimistic about them having any chance of being built due to the very stupid, short-sighted methods ODOT and OTA have been using to plan and build new turnpikes or freeways.

Metro OKC is growing pretty rapidly. Check out the historical imagery slider in Google Earth. Mustang, Yukon, Moore and other suburban areas are developing out pretty fast. The pace of this development will easily over-shoot the painfully slow process of getting new terrain superhighways built.

If the OTA and ODOT actually want to have any chance of completing new beltways around the OKC and Tulsa metro areas they're going to have to use a lot of that bond money to acquire right of way as soon as freaking possible. Unfortunately there's bunch of places where the prospective ROW is already developed. OTA and ODOT is just going to have to buy up those homes, businesses, churches, etc. that are already in the way in some of these corridors.

Several years ago some idiot allowed a developer to build a housing addition directly in the way of the current Southwest end of the Kilpatrick Turnpike. Now most of those houses will have to be razed for any Kilpatrick extension to happen, whether it goes to Airport Road for a very mediocre extension or where it should have went 15 years ago: along OK-4 and OK-9 to I-35 in Norman.

Could they extend the Kilpatrick with something like this?

Quote from: J N Winkler on November 11, 2015, 10:21:35 AM
I have read the comments so far with interest since Kansas (as a neighboring red state) has struggled with similar issues in urban areas.  Wichita has been trying to improve conditions for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users, at a glacial pace and with minimum funding, but little active opposition until very recently.  Now the governing majority on the Sedgwick County Commission is led by a goldbug and Murray Rothbard devotee who said just two days ago that roads and bridges are a "core responsibility" of government and improvements for other modes are expensive frills for small numbers of users.  This attitude really complicates things since the county writes the TIP along with the city of Wichita.

Where Oklahoma is concerned, I would agree that a $900 million turnpike program that (to the extent it serves urban areas) largely benefits long-distance urban commuters isn't a step in the right direction.  However, I also don't get the impression it will offset chronic underinvestment in the highway system, especially given the percentage of the headline price tag that will be absorbed by costs related to planning failure (chiefly higher ROW acquisition costs due to failure to reserve ROW).  In Kansas the current T-WORKS program is about ten times the size for about half of the population base.

I don't think it's a terrible idea. It doesn't promote urban living, to be sure, but two of the projects help bring OKC closer to having a true beltway, which may help reduce pass-thru traffic in the urban core. I don't think anyone is working under the assumption that OKC is heading towards walkable urban paradise and nothing else; I imagine the best end result of the current push will be a healthy balance of urbanized and surburban areas. This is perfectly fine for me–after all, I live in east side surburban Norman, not downtown OKC.

Quote from: skluth on November 11, 2015, 01:34:55 PM
Could they extend the Kilpatrick with something like this?

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/74842205/kilpatrickextension.png)

This is probably close to what they're planning.

Quote from: Scott5114I don't know all that much about Lawton and how it functions, but it seems to me that building Central Mall was a huge mistake.

Yes. There's a lot of long-time residents of Lawton who believe Central Mall gutted the heart out of the town. They miss the lost character. Seeing the success of OKC's MAPS program these people have been hoping to reclaim some of Lawton's long lost downtown spirit.

It's easy to understand why Central Mall was built. Violent crime in Lawton was at its historical peak. A lot of people were fed up with all the strip bars, open prostitution, drug dealing and what not going on in the downtown area. Central Mall literally erased and gentrified 12 city blocks in the downtown area.

Lawton's crime rate calmed down a bit, but it's not clear if Central Mall had any valid effect on taking away any of it. Other strip bars opened on Cache Road and Fort Sill Blvd just South of the Army Post. Many referred to it as "the strip" until the late 1990's when the city shut down all of that. Lawton is down to just two topless bars, both of which are outside of the city limits.

In all the time I've lived in Lawton the main streets here have been Cache Road and Sheridan Road. There hasn't been much to draw people to downtown other than Central Mall, government buildings and old churches. Most of the hustle and bustle in Lawton is miles away and car oriented.

The first time I visited Central Mall, when I was just a kid and my family was visiting relatives in the area, I thought the mall's location didn't make a damned bit of sense. Why wasn't the mall located near the freeway a mile to the East?



Like Scott5114 said, this is somewhat similar to what OTA is planning, or hoping to plan.

The problem is frequent, long distance visitors to Oklahoma City such as myself will rarely, if ever, use it. For my purposes, driving between Lawton and Northern OKC suburbs like Edmond that path is completely useless. It serves no big picture, long distance driving functions. It creates a faux Southern beltway path that is nothing more than a crooked, distance wasting way of sucking funds out of my PikePass account.

OTA, ODOT and the Mustang city government should have acted in the late 1990s to secure ROW for future Kilpatrick expansion along S. Sara Road from I-40, down thru Mustang and all the way down to I-44 where the current H.E. Bailey Turnpike extension ends. It has been unforgivably stupid how they sat back and did nothing.

The corridor along S. Sara Road to the Canadian River was the most logical direction for the Kilpatrick to expand. But now that corridor is pretty much shot to hell. I Photoshopped a couple of images to show what a cluster**** S. Sara Rd. has become for the Kilpatrick.



The Kilpatrick dead ends just North of this neighborhood. Not only would any Kilpatrick expansion consume at least a dozen homes of that housing addition, the OTA would need to buy up a bunch of acres of land North of that creek to allow the turnpike to curve over to this point. It's an obvious statement of zero city planning that this housing addition went up shortly after the Kilpatrick expansion to I-40 was finished. I don't know who needs the slap across the face more, the developers who built that housing or the idiots who OK'ed the project. It just makes me angry looking at it.



Then there's this new middle school and big housing addition on either side of S. Sara Road. The only way I see any turnpike getting built through there is if an F-5 tornado flattens the place first. Any Kilpatrick extension would have to dodge this to the East -if some jerk doesn't build a bunch of McMansions there first.



Finally, here's a busy intersection in Mustang. Back when the Kilpatrick extension to I-40 was under construction the intersection of OK-4 and SW 74th Street in Mustang was barely developed at all. ODOT just built a new Interstate highway quality bridge over the Canadian River just South of Mustang. The plan was freaking obvious. All they needed to do was secure the damned ROW. But they didn't bother. They figured they would worry about that later.

Any hopes of OKC having a properly functional beltway are diminishing year after year as the obvious corridors get bottled up with McMansion additions, Walmart stores, other big box stores, etc. The folks in power are asleep at the switch.

I had a little fun in my graphics programs and threw together this map of sorts showing what could possibly still be built on the OKC metro's SW side if the powers that be can act ASAP. It's a fairly big image since it covers a pretty large chunk of area. Existing freeways and toll roads are overlaid in yellow. Possible new superhighway routes are overlaid in white. The red, red-orange and orange paths represent the impossible S. Sara Road corridor (red) and a couple possible alternative routes that could still get a real beltway connected down to Norman. None of the alternatives are pain-free. At least some homes and a couple businesses would be displaced. But the alternatives dodge the Walmart, Lowes and other more expensive buildings.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5m7BEcZ.jpg&hash=f9f84ba3c4de53436adb93eea30603cf9be4bfd7)

Regarding the funny I-46 shields, I figured if I was going to spend a decent amount of free time stitching together screen shots of satellite imagery and then digitizing vector paths of roads over the top of it I might as well have some fun with it. Fictional highway: my idea of I-46 is a OKC to Denver connection -a very huge, obvious hole in the Interstate highway system. OTOH, with the currently proposed extension of the Kilpatrick Turnpike into Airport Road that could actually serve as a logical extension of I-240.

There's precedent for an I-240 extension–all of what is currently I-44 between present I-240 and I-35 was once part of I-240. Though I don't like the implication that an I-240 extension over the Kilpatrick Turnpike would make; it would insinuate that there is never any hope of a "real" OKC beltway extending as far south as Norman. Extending the freeway east along SH-9 from the Bailey Spur from US-62 to Santa Fe Avenue could, for the most part, be done tomorrow if there were funding, but from Santa Fe to I-35 you have an awful Breezewood of sorts. (Maybe a portion of  highway that is allowed to develop into a Breezewood due to poor planning by transportation agencies, when proper ROW protection could have easily prevented it, should be called a 'Riverwind'.) SH-9 through Norman really, really needs to be a freeway, as well; east of the main part of town the road could then swing north and catch the eastern turnpike proposed in this package.

Quote from: TXtoNJI don't think it's that bad - with creative routing and the flexibility of turnpike construction standards, your light orange route is workable and will require relatively little in the way of takings.

The light orange path on my map is the "easiest" one to build. It would dodge East of the Walmart and Lowes, but the path would take out Mustang Self Storage and a number of homes North of SW 74th Street before running parallel to Morgan Road, where it would then meet the proposed Kilpatrick Turnpike extension. This route will not stay relatively "easy" to build for long.

A lot of homes, big homes, have been built in this area during the past decade and more developments are starting nearby. I think oil & gas drilling activity is the only thing keeping some of these areas in Mustang clear.

The path I drew in Red could have been built (or ROW acquired) easily 15 years ago. Now in 2015 that red path is impossible for holding a turnpike.

If you look at Mustang, OK and areas around it in Google Earth's historical imagery slider it's becomes fairly surprising how much development has taken place since the late 1990's. Yukon, Mustang, Newcastle, Tuttle, Bridge Creek, Moore and Norman are all growing. At the very least ODOT and OTA need to think about the future and target strategic corridors in the OKC metro area to prevent it from getting bottled up the way cities like Phoenix and Albuquerque have been. I'm not talking just OK-4 and OK-9 either. I think a new I-44 to I-35 link between Newcastle and Norman will be needed in the future. Potential ROW is fairly open along Indian Hills Road between Moore and Norman. Edmond arguably needs its own loop highway from the Hefner Parkway & Kilpatrick Turnpike interchange, up and over to I-35. There are plans to extend the OK-74 freeway North about 3 miles, but that's all. If ODOT or OTA fart around too long they'll have to go well into Logan County before they can start turning that highway Eastward toward I-35.

Quote from: TXtoNJI don't think the Riverwind situation is as bad as it looks - there's plenty of setback there for ROW. A new freeway bridge over the South Canadian is needed anyway as a general bypass of Norman/easy route to Lloyd Noble, but finding the funding has likely been difficult.

It would have been better for OK-9 to become a freeway, and it could have easily become that years ago. Now a Interstate-quality bypass of Norman to the East would have to be built farther South between Norman and Noble.

Regarding the Riverwind "Breezewood" it might be possible to squeeze a freeway and frontage roads through that area without taking out any buildings. But it would be a very tight squeeze and would involve re-doing all the drainage adjacent to the OK-9 and involve property owners giving up some land. I just don't see the Riverwind Casino people going along with that. It would be safer and probably even more cost effective to buy up the businesses on the North side of OK-9.

QuoteYou have to look at how the US has historically developed - from Northeast to West and Southwest. These are the traffic flows that the entire country's development pattern has created. You also have to consider the relative cost of modes - water is cheaper than rail which is cheaper than highway. A major reason there aren't many Northwest to Southeast road routes is because it's cheaper to get goods to railheads and/or barges in the Mississippi or Great Lakes, and ship this way, than it is to send it overland the entire way. It's simply not worth the cost to build a corridor that isn't going to get used by commercial traffic.

I disagree with that, having driven between Oklahoma and Colorado many times. While there is more population down South and Southwest for places in the US West of the Mississippi River there are still major, high population destinations in the Rockies and Pacific Northwest -not to mention a lot of tourist & vacation destinations.

Currently the best route for personal and commercial traffic to take between points in Oklahoma and Front Range cities in Colorado is going clear over to Amarillo and picking up the Ports to Plains corridor then going clear to Raton, I-25 and crossing Raton Pass. That's pretty far out of the way, but right now it's the most direct route. You either do that or take a lot of "L" shaped turns and waste a whole lot more mileage and time.

The whole Riverwind situation would be a difficult problem to tackle. Involving Riverwind itself in any plan is a non-starter; I could go on at length about Riverwind management, but it's probably best that I don't. Even assuming that they were on board, Riverwind itself has to answer to the Chickasaw tribal government, which is based in Ada, and the traffic in Norman is so far down their priorities list as to not be worth mentioning. Beyond that, even if the tribe were in favor of constructing a freeway here, there are all kinds of legal hurdles involving transferring land to and from tribes that would make it be way, way more expensive than fair market value. All of this goes as well for the Sovereign urgent care clinic on the south side of SH-9, which is owned by the Chickasaw Nation and shares some management staff with Riverwind.

Beyond that, you still have an unpleasant planning situation here. SH-9 is the dividing line here between the city of Newcastle to the north and the town of Goldsby to the south. Newcastle is the largest city in McClain County, but this is far, far away from "downtown" Newcastle along US-62/US-277, which is, itself a quasi-suburban strip-mall hell, or it would be, if strip-mall developers had any interest in it. As it is now, Newcastle is one long, narrow, five-lane commercial strip, with practically nothing on the cross roads, which doesn't bode well for Newcastle having a planner on staff at all, much less one worried about its extreme southeast corner.

Goldsby is a town of around 1800 people and has yet to get its own post office, zip code, or school (such services come from Washington, to the south, population 635). Town hall has about ten people working in it; the mayor has a day job. You're not going to get planning from Goldsby.

The best option would be to swing the freeway north at about Santa Fe, cross the river on a new bridge, and then follow the north shore until you can connect at the current exit 108A. Unfortunately, this isn't going to be an option for much longer, either, as Norman residents just passed a referendum to build a shoreline park here. Your only option, then, is to swing deeper into Goldsby and cross the river somewhere between Norman and Noble, as you mentioned. This, sadly, does very little for SH-9 east of I-35, other than possibly relieving a little bit of its traffic, although it may be so far south that people just stay on SH-9 anyway.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 13, 2015, 12:39:14 AM

Quote from: Scott51114The whole Riverwind situation would be a difficult problem to tackle. Involving Riverwind itself in any plan is a non-starter; I could go on at length about Riverwind management, but it's probably best that I don't.

Is the land on the North side of OK-9 owned by the Chickasaw tribe? If it's not trust land then OTA could acquire those businesses and the ROW needed regardless of what the tribe or Casino management want or don't want.

Quote from: Scott5114The best option would be to swing the freeway north at about Santa Fe, cross the river on a new bridge, and then follow the north shore until you can connect at the current exit 108A. Unfortunately, this isn't going to be an option for much longer, either, as Norman residents just passed a referendum to build a shoreline park here.

I wonder if Norman residents realize the Canadian River can flood. Satellite imagery shows in fairly obvious detail how far the river can go outside of its banks. I wouldn't be building anything of value down next to that.

OTOH, having a riverside park wouldn't necessarily kill a new bridge crossing the Canadian River. If the new bridge was designed and built in an aesthetically pleasing way and accommodated pedestrian/bicycle traffic it might actually fly. Look at the Woodrow Wilson Bridges for I-95/I-495 on the South side of Washington, D.C. The bridges carry highly important Interstate highway traffic, but also connect pedestrian/bike paths and parks on both sides of the Potomac River. I'd have that potential bridge connect into the I-35 and OK-9 interchange on the North side of the Canadian River.

The businesses on the north side of SH-9 are not tribally owned. Looking at the map, it looks like there might be room to put a freeway up behind those businesses, along the SE 40th Street corridor. Then existing SH-9 could just be a short commercial strip with freeway interchanges on both ends. Hooking into I-35 from that corridor might get expensive, though.

I don't think the Canadian River Park is intended to be a highly-developed park. Based on the brief description given by the city in the flyers sent out ahead of the referendum, it seems like the main draw will be hiking trails. Presumably if it floods it will just close the park for a while.

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 11, 2015, 05:43:05 AM
I don't know all that much about Lawton and how it functions, but it seems to me that building Central Mall was a huge mistake. OKC made a similar misstep a decade earlier with I.M. Pei's downtown redevelopment plan that led to the destruction of countless historic buildings, but some good came out of that in the form of the Myriad Gardens and what is now the Cox Convention Center (which is in the process of being relocated). The Pei Plan never really generated the downtown retail that it was intended to, and as a result the expected downtown residential developments never happened.

Lawton had to do something.  NO ONE would go downtown during the late 60's/early 70's.  I lived in Duncan at the time and we would drive to Wichita Falls just to avoid Lawton retail (except for the Sears on Gore).  My memories of downtown Lawton were of a rundown home for winos.

While I do agree with Scott that it could have been WAY better, for most of the 80's it was a BIG regional draw.  Although it would be nice to be able to bulldoze it and start over, I doubt there is anyone with the vision to do it right, much less the stroke to get it funded.

What we have in Lawton now is decentralized, gentrified randomness. It's not bad. But it's not great either. Lots of locals love the new Carmike theater and its 598 seat IMAX screen (but not the steep ticket prices). Rumors have it that a Dave & Busters will be built next door to it. This is all next to Rogers Lane, far on Lawton's West side, a few miles away from downtown and a few miles away from I-44 too. It's almost like there's two different cities trying to be built with the ashes of the former city in the middle being left behind to rot.

Here's a little graphical goodness to add to the discussion of the Riverwind Casino "Breezewood" of sorts. There is a few ways to build around it. I think buying up the half dozen or so businesses along OK-9 across the highway from the casino and building there is the very best alternative. But the attached illustration shows some potential options.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1ffwEvs.jpg&hash=6d295d116eca53e10310d605380bf48e08a519a8)

And yet again, I had to have some fun with highway markers. Keeping with that I-46 concept, I worked it into the design. I think a Denver to Texarkana via OKC route would be awesome. And it would have Oklahoma criss-crossed in 8 directions and leverage the state more highly as the commercial geographic center of the US even if a point in Kansas is the true geographic center of the country. The I-644 thing would be one idea of a route spanning from the Newcastle area over to Norman. But it could do that via Indian Hills Road.

Quote
First of all, OK-3 does not go directly to Colorado. It goes to Boise City. That's all. I've driven the Boise City route, where you pick up US-287 going only North, not toward any actual cities. There not nearly as much traffic on that corridor as US 64-87 in Northern New Mexico. You have to go down into the Texas panhandle for commercial traffic counts to ramp up, but that's for oil/gas production, agriculture and some very smelly cattle processing plants and feed lots.

The OK-3 and US-287 route in the Oklahoma Panhandle and SE Colorado is all 2-lane. And it's dangerous. One my girlfriend's friends was killed last year in a head on collision North of Boise City when a semi crossed into her lane. I'll keep taking the four lane routes in the Texas panhandle and NE New Mexico to get to Colorado.

3 actually does go right to the state line...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fok%2F287%2Fcoto385%2F1.jpg&hash=fa4a38ba2ade48e240ac236dba08db2e46aa26c5)

I'd take 287/3 over 25/87 every day of the week, and a lot of other people do too, with all due respect to your girlfriend's friend. Especially in winter, it's an easier drive, besides being significantly shorter. People die on Raton Pass too.

It's two lane, but there are wide shoulders and plenty of passing opportunities through Colorado, making it a fairly pleasant if boring drive.

QuoteThe distance is also shorter

Most of what you've said is, I guess, opinion, but the distance absolutely is not shorter. 287 is a solid 40 miles shorter to any point in Oklahoma from Colorado than 64/87.

To my mind, the principal advantage of the I-40/US 64-87/I-25 route is that it passes through all of the Front Range cities in succession, which is ideal if the intent is to go to Denver by way of Pueblo or Colorado Springs rather than Denver directly.  A person leaving from Oklahoma City and going directly to Denver is better off time-wise compared to all other routes (though not mileage-wise) taking I-35 and I-70 through Kansas.

US 64-87 may now be four-laned as a result of NMDOT's recent rural four-laning program, but this is largely offset by I-25 in Colorado south of Castle Rock being one of the worst rural Interstates in the country, with a 75 limit in combination with numerous curves with 50-55 MPH advisories.

Edit:  I-40/US 64-87/I-25 is actually the shortest route to Denver both time- and mileage-wise for someone leaving from Lawton.  The underlying point is that the starting point in Oklahoma is critical for determining the route that offers the shortest time or distance for a direct car journey to Denver.  It is not a very good approximation to treat routings from Oklahoma City as representative for the entire state minus Panhandle.

Quote from: corcoMost of what you've said is, I guess, opinion, but the distance absolutely is not shorter. 287 is a solid 40 miles shorter to any point in Oklahoma from Colorado than 64/87.

My drive from Lawton to Colorado Springs is significantly shorter going by way of US-64/87 and Raton Pass rather than driving up US-287 and taking a left turn at CO-94. I've driven both ways and know the difference very well.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 11, 2015, 10:51:21 PM

The problem is frequent, long distance visitors to Oklahoma City such as myself will rarely, if ever, use it. For my purposes, driving between Lawton and Northern OKC suburbs like Edmond that path is completely useless. It serves no big picture, long distance driving functions. It creates a faux Southern beltway path that is nothing more than a crooked, distance wasting way of sucking funds out of my PikePass account.

Then don't use it.  I can guarantee that everyone coming from the west on I40 will jump at the chance to use it as a shorter route to I44 and Moore/Norman.   I know I will just to avoid the hell that is the Amarillo junction.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 11, 2015, 10:51:21 PM
OTA, ODOT and the Mustang city government should have acted in the late 1990s to secure ROW for future Kilpatrick expansion along S. Sara Road from I-40, down thru Mustang and all the way down to I-44 where the current H.E. Bailey Turnpike extension ends. It has been unforgivably stupid how they sat back and did nothing.  The corridor along S. Sara Road to the Canadian River was the most logical direction for the Kilpatrick to expand. But now that corridor is pretty much shot to hell.

Logical, maybe.  But where was the money to buy the land going to come from?  If you have $250 million to spend on roads and you spend even as little as $5 million to "preserve future ROW" you will be pilloried in every media available for not spending it on deficient bridges, substandard intersections, etc.  Oklahoma doesn't have that kind of money ANYWHERE.  Sure, we would all love to be able to do that, but it takes $$$, something most voters don't want to vote for to spend on "future" benefits.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 11, 2015, 10:51:21 PM
The Kilpatrick dead ends just North of this neighborhood. Not only would any Kilpatrick expansion consume at least a dozen homes of that housing addition, the OTA would need to buy up a bunch of acres of land North of that creek to allow the turnpike to curve over to this point. It's an obvious statement of zero city planning that this housing addition went up shortly after the Kilpatrick expansion to I-40 was finished. I don't know who needs the slap across the face more, the developers who built that housing or the idiots who OK'ed the project. It just makes me angry looking at it.  Any hopes of OKC having a properly functional beltway are diminishing year after year as the obvious corridors get bottled up with McMansion additions, Walmart stores, other big box stores, etc. The folks in power are asleep at the switch.

As Scott pointed out, you can avoid all of the things you mentioned on Sara Rd except for the development at the intersection of 4 and 152.  You do realize that most of that land had been purchased by developers once the new Canadian River bridge was proposed.  Walmart (through its real estate subsidiary) certainly had.  The $5 million I mentioned above wouldn't have bought 1/2 mile of ROW at that time. 

The route shown earlier would be OK in my opinion IF there is a spur south and west to meet up with OK 4.  But you still have to get through Tuttle.......

http://www.drivingforwardok.com/#!Area-of-Study-for-Northeast-Oklahoma-County-Loop-Narrows-to-Area-along-Peebly-Road/tgcb1/569441190cf20ee37c6ec3b9

OTA is looking at a two-mile-wide corridor centered on Peebly Road for the northeast Oklahoma County loop.

OTA has released a preliminary route for the turnpike between I-40 and I-44 in NE Oklahoma County.  Two options are shown for the northern end.  About 100 structures are in the path. http://media.wix.com/ugd/7181a5_07530de184294c6cad8be95cb5eef61f.pdf (http://media.wix.com/ugd/7181a5_07530de184294c6cad8be95cb5eef61f.pdf)

It's supposed to be a "relief route" for I-35, but no plan for extending it south of I-40 was presented.

Without connections to I-35 the route will not just fail to function as a relief route for I-35, but I don't think it will attract much traffic at all, probably not enough for the toll road to pay for itself. BTW, I hope the interchange designs with I-40 and I-44 are not final. One fly-over ramp and a cloverleaf? Yuck.

Roads have to go somewhere. Policy makers can't just build a turnpike out in the sticks and expect development to suddenly flourish around it.

A tolled relief route for I-35 that doesn't connect to I-35 at either end is really dumb, even by Oklahoma standards.

Gotcha. I was thinking BSA.

An even bigger problem is the rail folks can't seem to manage building a commuter passenger rail line without it costing well into the billions of dollars. A light rail line parallel to I-44 between OKC and Tulsa would be guaranteed to cost at least a few billion dollars. That's just something built mostly at grade. When you bury the rail line (subway) or elevate it the cost is just going to skyrocket.

It really pisses me off how road building and maintenance costs have seen such obscene levels of cost inflation in recent years, but they still seem cheap compared to building a freaking subway line. The MTA in New York is expected to spend $17 billion to just to complete the 8.5 mile 2nd Ave. subway line in Manhattan. Construction on it actually began over 40 years ago with some tunnel sections sitting empty for decades. If they're not lining the tunnel walls with gold and emeralds some connected people's pockets much be getting filled that way.

So, after one spends many billions of dollars building a commuter rail line between OKC and Tulsa how many people are going bother using it? Both Tulsa and OKC are de-centralized, car-oriented cities with work places and living places spread all over each metro area. Both cities would first need their own light rail systems properly covering each area before they could be connected via a regional commuter rail line.

At this point it's probably going to be a long time before OKC or Tulsa get started on their own light rail systems. Oklahoma's state and city governments overall can't even manage to get any real long term transportation plans established and properly enforced. They only think about the short term. Taking action to preserve rights of way for a new freeway, toll road or even a passenger rail line is totally alien to them. They just let developers build where ever they like.

Texas can get some big things done, both in terms of highway and rail, because they plan ahead for it, sometimes decades in advance. Oklahoma's decision makers can't see past the next 4 years.

Looking more closely at London as a comparator to Oklahoma City, the 1861 census has 3.1 million people living in the former County of London, at an average population density of 5,200 people per square mile.

http://www.demographia.com/dm-lon31.htm

Modern Oklahoma City has about 620,000 people in 620 square miles--about 1000 people per square mile.

A more fine-grained analysis suggests that 5,000 people per square mile represents a density threshold at which expansion of a heavy rail mass transit network becomes viable.  The lines that made up the London Underground were originally quite small, but were massively expanded during the interwar years (1918-1939) when the growth in the secondary industries (e.g. auto manufacturing), in combination with decline in primary production in the north of England, resulted in population transfer to the south and booming suburbanization in London.  Population density in the outer boroughs was already past the 5,000/square mile threshold in 1911 and almost doubled (approaching County of London levels) between 1921 and 1939.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 18, 2016, 02:26:14 PM
It really pisses me off how road building and maintenance costs have seen such obscene levels of cost inflation in recent years, but they still seem cheap compared to building a freaking subway line. The MTA in New York is expected to spend $17 billion to just to complete the 8.5 mile 2nd Ave. subway line in Manhattan. Construction on it actually began over 40 years ago with some tunnel sections sitting empty for decades. If they're not lining the tunnel walls with gold and emeralds some connected people's pockets much be getting filled that way.

The 2nd Avenue Line is obviously going to be very expensive.  Tunnel, NY underground as full of tunnels as swiss cheese already, complex interlinks between crossing subways.  However, we know it will get used heavily as soon as it opens.  You can't really say that about most other subways in the U.S.

Wtf is going on in here?

Quote from: rte66man on March 20, 2016, 11:18:25 PMAlthough I realize that 35 north from I-40 to I-44 is in desperate need of modernization (built in the early 60's with inadequate capacity), the stretch of I44 west from Lincoln to Dead Man's Curve at OK66/74 is the biggest piece of crap in the entire state.  Built in the mid-70's, they should have know better than to design what they did.  I might melt my keyboard if I start listing all the problems.

I drove this length of I-44 as part of an OKC day trip in late 2014.  I found it fairly painless, but it was at night and well after the rush hour.  Besides the 90° change in bearing at the western end, it has a lot of fairly sharp curves and far too many access points.  Some of these leave or join on the left, and some fail to form part of complete interchanges offering full two-way connectivity.  (I count 24 in 3 miles; an ordinary freeway with simple diamond exits at mile spacing would have just 16.)

I don't think, though, that the late 1970's was a good time to expect freeways to be designed with superior operating characteristics in urban areas.

Partly this was because most of the easy design problems were solved much earlier, in the 1960's or even the 1950's.  The lengths of planned freeway that were still on state DOTs' to-do lists by the 1970's generally had underlying design issues that either delayed letting or made it difficult to develop consensus on a final design.  Rural free I-35 in Kansas was a bit of an exception because its construction was artificially delayed to avoid competition with the Kansas Turnpike, but the Canal Route segment of I-135 in Wichita (itself a somewhat compromised design with closely spaced exits, room left for possible connections to a cancelled freeway, and limited merging area at many exits) is a child of the late 1970's.  Some of the delay came from inadequately mapped water lines since this part of Wichita was developed fairly early in the city's history.

The anti-freeway movement was also in full swing by the 1970's and the light rail line substitution policy came in (if memory serves) by the late 1960's.  This would have had the effect of making a freeway proposal easy to kill if it failed to meet the local community's expectations of access.  I suspect this may be why I-44 has too many accesses.

The double-nickel speed limit might also have had an effect in making state DOTs unwilling to fight to hold the line on design speed within urban areas.  FHWA published a report in the late 1970's noting that the double nickel was expected to be a permanent policy and laying out the pros and cons of allowing lower design speeds for freeways.  My recollection is that, for a variety of reasons, the report recommended that the existing conservative approach to design be retained, but I don't think state DOT engineers would have felt safe insisting on 60 or nothing for urban proposals that already had significant access, constructability, and environmental-justice issues.

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 21, 2016, 12:31:37 AM

Quote from: rte66man on March 20, 2016, 11:18:25 PM
The anti-freeway movement was also in full swing by the 1970's and the light rail line substitution policy came in (if memory serves) by the late 1960's.  This would have had the effect of making a freeway proposal easy to kill if it failed to meet the local community's expectations of access.  I suspect this may be why I-44 has too many accesses.

I'm not sure that the ODOT access policy had anything to do with perceived possibility of a freeway protest. As far as I know, Oklahoma has only had one full-on freeway protest, and that was against the Creek Turnpike in the 1990s (which was mostly just area residents that could not offer a serious argument against the freeway's construction other than the impact it would have on their personal lives). I-240 shows a similar overabundance of exits, so I think it may have just been ODOT's design choice at the time.

This segment of I-44 was originally Grand Boulevard and, upon being upgraded to freeway, first carried the I-240 designation, not I-44. I don't know if any of that influenced its design or not.

New proposed alignment for OKC SW loop http://www.drivingforwardok.com/#!Southwest-Kilpatrick-Extension-Preliminary-Alignment-Announced/tgcb1/56fb0d500cf226b8e685e468 (http://www.drivingforwardok.com/#!Southwest-Kilpatrick-Extension-Preliminary-Alignment-Announced/tgcb1/56fb0d500cf226b8e685e468)

It's interesting the OTA is actually moving forward with at least some kind of plan before all the land in Mustang is filled in with development. I think this project is a more urgent priority than the one on the East side of the metro area due to so much random development going unchecked and blocking possible corridors. It will be interesting to see if they can get a corridor finalized and protected before developers screw it up.

I laughed when I saw the first part of the extension. Immediately South of I-40 the alignment hooks sharply West to dodge two schools (that it already dodged before dead-ending at SW 15th Street). The real reason for the odd hook to the left is the Mustang Creek housing development, idiotically put directly in the path of the turnpike's logical extension. The the road hooks around hard to the East just to cut under that development, but then has to turn hard again to avoid Castlebrook Crossing.

Still, this proposed turnpike extension path is cutting across some housing developments that are in progress.

The big question is: How are they going to ever connect this with OK-4 South of Mustang? The OTA, ODOT and City of Mustang absolutely have to figure an answer to that question ASAP, get a corridor identified and at least start trying to acquire the ROW for it. The OTA and ODOT also have to at least start some kind of planning with the OK-9 segment between I-44 and I-35 South of Norman.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 30, 2016, 09:39:45 PM
The big question is: How are they going to ever connect this with OK-4 South of Mustang? The OTA, ODOT and City of Mustang absolutely have to figure an answer to that question ASAP, get a corridor identified and at least start trying to acquire the ROW for it.

"Absolutely have to?"  Is the world going to end if the connection just never gets built?

Quote from: stridentweasel"Absolutely have to?"  Is the world going to end if the connection just never gets built?

The world won't end, but eventually traffic in that part of the OKC metro area will turn into a complete clusterf*** that's impossible to fix if the powers that be don't screw on their heads and start actually doing some real planning for the future.

I don't expect Oklahoma City to have a complete superhighway outer loop built any time soon. But if they hope to ever have the possibility of building one anytime in the future they need to specify the corridors and start acquiring the ROW now. They could easily have done this 20 or 30 years ago -like Texas has been doing for decades. That proposed Kilpatrick Turnpike extension wouldn't be so laughably crooked and curvy.

The very least thing they could have done was require substantial minimum set-backs along S. Sara Road in Mustang. Any idiot could have easily seen that was where the turnpike was eventually going to expand. Instead they just let everyone build right up next to the street along with as many driveways as they wanted.

I think the ideal endgame for OKC would be a dense, urbanized area in the "core" (the area bounded by I-44, I-235, and I-40) with easy transit access to and within that area, and the remainder of the city with its current suburban development style. That seems like an ideal setup to give OKC residents a choice in the sort of lifestyle they want to live.

(I do have to laugh at the mention of Ada in a transit discussion. I'm fairly familiar with it since my wife has family there and it will probably be the last place on Earth to ever get transit. If it ever happens it will be because the Chickasaw Nation decided to start throwing money after it, and then there's a fair chance its use would be limited to tribal members and employees.)

That said, while the east loop is somewhat questionable, the Kilpatrick extension does serve a need, and even more so if it gets extended further down the SH-4 corridor. As a Norman resident, I can think of some plausible uses for it already, though I tend to be a tightwad and would probably just stick to I-44 unless it's, like, pay day or something.

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 21, 2016, 12:31:37 AM

Quote from: rte66man on March 20, 2016, 11:18:25 PMAlthough I realize that 35 north from I-40 to I-44 is in desperate need of modernization (built in the early 60's with inadequate capacity), the stretch of I44 west from Lincoln to Dead Man's Curve at OK66/74 is the biggest piece of crap in the entire state.  Built in the mid-70's, they should have know better than to design what they did.  I might melt my keyboard if I start listing all the problems.

I drove this length of I-44 as part of an OKC day trip in late 2014.  I found it fairly painless, but it was at night and well after the rush hour.  Besides the 90° change in bearing at the western end, it has a lot of fairly sharp curves and far too many access points.  Some of these leave or join on the left, and some fail to form part of complete interchanges offering full two-way connectivity.  (I count 24 in 3 miles; an ordinary freeway with simple diamond exits at mile spacing would have just 16.)

I don't think, though, that the late 1970's was a good time to expect freeways to be designed with superior operating characteristics in urban areas.

I have to drive it from Dead Man's Curve to Lincoln Blvd every morning and the reverse every evening.  As you mentioned, the large number of left entrances and exits means slow traffic gets in both the far left and far right, meaning even the middle get clogged due to the inordinate number of lane changes.  The bends between those 2 points are due it it following 1950's era US66's old alignment. 

However, the absolute WORST part is westbound approaching May Ave.  Between 4 and 7 PM, you can almost guarantee traffic will come to a complete halt. Traffic wanting to continue west on 44 are forced into the 2 left lanes, which narrow to one lane just past Dead Man's Curve, where they merge with OK74.  Traffic wanting to either continue west on OK66 (39th St Expy) or go north on OK74 (about half of all traffic at that point) have ONE lane to exit.  Traffic will often back up past the May Av exit.  This is compounded by the "late arrivers" who merge at the last moment.  :pan:

On top of that, if you want to exit right to OK74 northbound, you have to cross the entrance ramp from May Av westbound to OK66.  Although there is a Yield sign on the ramp, I can truthfully say I have NEVER seen anyone yield to traffic wanting to go north on 74. :banghead:

J N, while I agree in general with you about 70's design standards, even I knew back then that this interchange would never work. Not too many places in the US where a 2-digit interstate highway narrows to one lane in EACH direction as does 44 at this interchange.  Yes Scott, I realize this used to be I-240, but that's still no excuse for piss-poor design.

Design alignments for the Northeast Oklahoma County Loop (http://media.wix.com/ugd/7181a5_6f144021678f445984cb770c3e862abe.pdf) and Kilpatrick Extension (http://media.wix.com/ugd/7181a5_9fd95797f8b84077b11fb769817f0092.pdf) have dropped.

Question from a novice...if OTA wanted to someday extend the Kilpatrick down to Norman, would it make sense to build a theoretical extension just NE of the Canadian River, or no? I feel that areas directly NE of the river are less prone to development, which would give OTA more time to raise the funds necessary for such an extension. But at the same time, I will concede that there may be significant downsides to building a highway right next to the river, the most obvious of which would be terrain issues and the fact that nearly every road in the southern suburbs dead-ends right at the river. Just wondering how you guys would feel about the logistics of a route such as the following: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1hLfbJt02iblV-CVZXXr3EL2H4ys

I will say, even if the river route isn't feasible, the upcoming extension seems to favor SH-76 over SH-4 if OTA someday wants to connect the Kilpatrick to SH-9.

The main problem is such a route would be situated in a flood prone area, requiring the roadway to be elevated on bridges for much of that length. That might be cost prohibitive.

I still believe OK-4 coming up from I-44 into Mustang and the H.E. Bailey Turnpike extension heading into OK-9 going East toward Norman really ought to be the focal points on finishing the Kilpatrick Turnpike. I think it would be the most beneficial solution. The problem is development is encroaching more and more of this corridor as the years pass.

The area around Riverwind Casino is already a big problem. In order to connect the H.E. Bailey Turnpike extension into I-35 the freeway would have to be elevated over OK-9 as it passed the casino. The tribe might not like that very much and no one would like the cost of it. Another alternative would be making the turnpike split from OK-9 a mile or so West of the casino, curve North over a new river crossing and connect into the OK-9/I-35 interchange on the North side of the river. The downside is that interchange, which is going through one re-model, would have to be modified yet again.

The area around the OK-4/OK-37 intersection South of Mustang is getting built up. A South extension of the Kilpatrick would probably have to bypass that intersection to avoid the growing number of properties alingning it.

Another big problem is trying to connect OK-4 with the Kilpatrick extension that does get built. How far East and out of the way would the route have to jog? The Sara Road corridor has already been overtaken with development. One could build a connection about a half mile East of Sara Road to avoid Walmart, Lowes, etc. A couple businesses and some homes to the North would have to be taken. But hardly any new superhighway can get built these days without some properties being bought and demolished.

These problems would not have been problems if ODOT and the OTA had any real planning sense. The ROW for the South half of the Kilpatrick should have been bought and reserved over 20 years ago. But ODOT and OTA couldn't bother doing anything like that. Such planning would be too much like Texas style. And we know how much Oklahoma hates Texas. :-P

It would not have cost ODOT and/or the OTA a ton of money to just get the ROW reserved back when they should have done so: when the Kilpatrick Turnpike was in its planning stages about 30 years ago. They didn't have to fully build out a turnpike then. They didn't even have to build a Texas style divided street with a huge median. It could have taken as little as some zoning decisions, like mandating minimum set-backs for development along OK-4, OK-9 and S. Sara Road when hardly anything was built alongside it. They couldn't even manage something as simple as that. That's piss poor planning.

Oklahoma's style of transportation planning is reacting to something after it has turned into a problem rather than thinking 10, 20 or 30 years into the future and planning for that.

As for all the millennials taking buses or using Ãœber, that might be going on in some dense inner cities and college towns, but it's really not very widespread anywhere else. We have lots of millennials in Lawton. Most of them either have cars or are bumming rides off other people who own cars. But we do have our first real bike trail (along Fort Sill Blvd. from Elmer Thomas Park up to Rogers Lane and onto Post). I saw a guy in a motorized wheelchair using it yesterday.

Will someone explain the OK-9 development difficulties? On Google Maps, I see a consistent 330 ft corridor from the end of the HE Bailey Spur to I-35. That's more than enough space to construct a turnpike facility.

QuoteGotta build it out before people can use it.

That doesn't have to happen immediately. Texas has quite a few freeway-wide corridors that are simply divided streets or highways with at grade intersections. A bunch of US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo is built like this. Some of these freeway-ready corridors only have a single two-lane roadway with the rest of the ROW to the left or right of the existing road. Oklahoma could have done that with OK-4, OK-9 and Sara Road quite easily and without a huge amount of expense. They just didn't bother to think ahead. That's piss poor planning or just a complete lack of planning.

Quote from: TXtoNJWill someone explain the OK-9 development difficulties? On Google Maps, I see a consistent 330 ft corridor from the end of the HE Bailey Spur to I-35. That's more than enough space to construct a turnpike facility.

OK-9 between the end of the H.E. Bailey Turnpike Norman Spur to I-35 is more tricky than that. Some parts of the corridor are wide enough to upgrade without any displacement of existing properties. But it would be a tight squeeze. SE 44th Street works like one half of a set of frontage roads. That kept some homes and other properties set back at a practical distance. Unfortunately there is no access road on the South side. That allowed some properties to get too close to the OK-9 main lanes, especially at Whipporwill Drive.

Between 24th Ave. and I-35 the OK-9 main lanes are flanked by a bunch of service businesses and Riverwind Casino. The ROW might be wide enough to support a turnpike, but it would have to be elevated going in front of Riverwind. There's too many driveways and drainage ditches through there. I don't know what the opposition would be like to such a proposal. However, if I was someone in charge of running the casino I would gladly welcome the superhighway upgrade. It would put more traffic (and customers) through that area.

QuoteI wasn't talking about the motorist infrastructure in this case.  That's already plenty built out considering, despite population growth, traffic is peaking or has already peaked for most places in the state.

Where are you getting this statistic you keep repeating? Unless the Oklahoma's population is in a state of decline (people moving elsewhere, dying off, etc.) the state's traffic levels have not peaked. Oklahomans have not been trading in their cars for bicycles & bus passes en masse.

High gasoline prices made a lot of drivers conserve their trips the past few years. But with the collapse of oil prices and gasoline prices there's just as much traffic on the roads now than any other time in the last 20 or so years. That's certainly the case here in Lawton. I wish there were fewer cars on our streets, especially the slow obstructionist ones going 20mph below the posted speed limit.

Bike paths and bus systems are primarily the responsibility of individual towns and cities to handle. Such systems are not a replacement for regional highway systems. And they shouldn't be eliminating the planning of such highway systems either. The need for things like a proper outer loop around Oklahoma City is never going to go away. People might be pedaling around the OKC core, but they're not going to be doing that on the city's outskirts.

It's pretty difficult to get bike path networks built out in small cities like Lawton. People here have been working over 20 years on such a network. After all that time we have just a couple segments of real bike paths. The city put up bike path signs along 6th Street, Ferris Avenue and a couple other streets. Hardly anyone travels on those streets using a bicycle. Some of that has to do with Red State Car Culture. More of it has to do with safety. It's downright dangerous to pedal a bicycle in the lane of a city street. The law may be on the bicyclist's side, but the law does nothing to remove the danger. Too many people have their heads up their butts when they're behind the wheel of a car. They gotta check Facebook or their text messages rather than notice the bicyclists in front of them.

'From 2000 to 2014, annual VMT in Oklahoma increased by 10 percent, from 43.4 billion miles traveled annually to 47.7 billion miles traveled annually'

From OKLAHOMA TRANSPORTATION BY THE NUMBERS (http://www.tripnet.org/docs/OK_Transportation_by_the_Numbers_TRIP_Report_April_2016.pdf) (tripnet & sourced to FHWA)

Another issue with any extension of the SH-9 expressway on the Cleveland County side would be that Norman just passed a referendum to build a park along the river west of I-35. Using that area for a freeway instead would probably rankle a lot of the people that voted for it. That being said, the new interchange at 108A would be a lot more conducive to a western expansion than the old one was.

At this point the easiest way to do it would probably be to swing south into Goldsby at about Santa Fe/NW 24th Street, bypass the casino and businesses by roughly following Lamar Avenue, and tie into I-35 where it curves to the southeast.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 19, 2016, 07:09:54 PM
Another issue with any extension of the SH-9 expressway on the Cleveland County side would be that Norman just passed a referendum to build a park along the river west of I-35. Using that area for a freeway instead would probably rankle a lot of the people that voted for it. That being said, the new interchange at 108A would be a lot more conducive to a western expansion than the old one was.

At this point the easiest way to do it would probably be to swing south into Goldsby at about Santa Fe/NW 24th Street, bypass the casino and businesses by roughly following Lamar Avenue, and tie into I-35 where it curves to the southeast.

I like that idea because of the total rebuild needed at the OK74/I35 interchange at Goldsby.  Kill 2 birds with one stone.

Quote from: rte66man on May 20, 2016, 01:03:16 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 19, 2016, 07:09:54 PM
Another issue with any extension of the SH-9 expressway on the Cleveland County side would be that Norman just passed a referendum to build a park along the river west of I-35. Using that area for a freeway instead would probably rankle a lot of the people that voted for it. That being said, the new interchange at 108A would be a lot more conducive to a western expansion than the old one was.

At this point the easiest way to do it would probably be to swing south into Goldsby at about Santa Fe/NW 24th Street, bypass the casino and businesses by roughly following Lamar Avenue, and tie into I-35 where it curves to the southeast.

I like that idea because of the total rebuild needed at the OK74/I35 interchange at Goldsby.  Kill 2 birds with one stone.

The area I have in mind would still be a mile north of SH-74. That interchange is a little awkward but I think it's still fine for the traffic levels it has. With the ROW they have though, it wouldn't be too hard to convert it to a true parclo, with ramps in the NW and SE quadrants.

It's the complete lack of a northbound merge lane that gets to me.

As someone who grew up in Goldsby, we always just used the shoulder as a de facto merge lane if necessary at both exits 104 and 101.

Because Newcastle is a place that some of us from Norman have reason to go to. SH-9 is also a vital link connecting Norman to the southwest part of the state, e.g. Chickasha and Lawton.

The western expansion I referred to was a possible western extension of the SH-9 alignment on the Cleveland County side.

Norman doesn't have much room to expand to the west.

http://lutherregister.news/2016/09/20/their-day-in-court/

Good news!

https://www.drivingforwardok.com/single-post/2016/12/18/Supreme-Court-makes-right-call-on-turnpike-financing-plan

I don't have a strong objection in principle to cross-pledging, though it does crack the door a bit wider for white-elephant projects.  I could have done without all of the propaganda for toll finance in that press release, though.

As far as mass transit goes I just want OKC to get a light rail line to Will Rodgers and the south side. I'm not happy about the street car as I do NOT support rail transit with at grade crossing let alone being mixed in with vehicle traffic. I would have preferred a subway but OKC isn't dense enough for that yet. So imo, the best solution would be BRT and you could electrify the buses to make it a bus trolley and that would have given us more miles than a measly 5 miles of track.

Where the hell is Wakefield?

Okay maybe but that isn't a fair comparison because those cities were developed long before automobile. Though OKC was technically founded before the auto really took off and became ingrained in our culture, the city didn't really take off either right after it was founded.

I would love to see subway lines in OKC as a thought, but being realistic, the only city aroind OKC that needs to be concerned with building subway is Dallas and Houston. Maybe Austin but I'd prefer overhead rail in Austin.

QuoteMan, imagine New York or London having that mentality when it was Oklahoma City's size...

Imagine the days well over a century ago when building a single subway line didn't cost tens of billions of dollars. There's no way in hell Oklahoma City (or the entire state for that matter) could afford to build any underground communter rail lines. The extreme costs make such a thing just as stupid a fantasy as building a subway under the Atlantic from New York to London.

QuoteI would love to see subway lines in OKC as a thought, but being realistic, the only city aroind OKC that needs to be concerned with building subway is Dallas and Houston. Maybe Austin but I'd prefer overhead rail in Austin.

Subways as well as tunneling of any kind is literally going to price itself out of existence. The 2 mile, 4 lane Alaska Way Viaduct replacement tunnel in Seattle is costing well over $4 billion to build. That's a lot more than what the gigantic expansions of Katy Freeway in Houston and LBJ Freeway in Dallas cost. In New York City the 8.5 mile 2nd Avenue Subway project currently has a total cost over $17 billion; the first 2 mile phase that just opened cost $4.45 billion. The MTA has been working on-again off-again since the early 1970's to get this thing built. If not for NYC's financial crisis in 1975 the subway line probably would have been completed back then for far less money. These days any mass transit infrastructure project is a freaking orgy of extreme costs and greed. Of course, that nonsense has spread itself into road construction too.

People joke about China building slip-shod roads and bridges. Well, at least they're building something. They just opened the world's highest bridge, a huge suspension bridge that cost "only" $150 million. The same project in this country would easily cost billions.

There's also the fact that the water table in OKC is so high that it's not feasible for most buildings to even have basements. An underground subway would have to mitigate this, which would be incredibly expensive.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 12, 2017, 11:14:08 AM


Imagine the days well over a century ago when building a single subway line didn't cost tens of billions of dollars. There's no way in hell Oklahoma City (or the entire state for that matter) could afford to build any underground communter rail lines. The extreme costs make such a thing just as stupid a fantasy as building a subway under the Atlantic from New York to London.

QuoteI would love to see subway lines in OKC as a thought, but being realistic, the only city aroind OKC that needs to be concerned with building subway is Dallas and Houston. Maybe Austin but I'd prefer overhead rail in Austin.

Subways as well as tunneling of any kind is literally going to price itself out of existence. The 2 mile, 4 lane Alaska Way Viaduct replacement tunnel in Seattle is costing well over $4 billion to build. That's a lot more than what the gigantic expansions of Katy Freeway in Houston and LBJ Freeway in Dallas cost. In New York City the 8.5 mile 2nd Avenue Subway project currently has a total cost over $17 billion; the first 2 mile phase that just opened cost $4.45 billion. The MTA has been working on-again off-again since the early 1970's to get this thing built. If not for NYC's financial crisis in 1975 the subway line probably would have been completed back then for far less money. These days any mass transit infrastructure project is a freaking orgy of extreme costs and greed. Of course, that nonsense has spread itself into road construction too.

People joke about China building slip-shod roads and bridges. Well, at least they're building something. They just opened the world's highest bridge, a huge suspension bridge that cost "only" $150 million. The same project in this country would easily cost billions.

Well, for one thing, Dallas is actually considering a subway line. While expensive, they are great because they are no disruption to traffic and are incredibly efficient as most tunnels are. Dallas is also considering overhead rail similar to Chicago.

While they are expansive, this country also has really high standards. I also think a fair portion of the money goes to environmental engineering as well. I do agree the costs are especially prohibitive but Dallas is a massive city that can take it on. If it wants to propel its downtown into the 21st century,  it needs to have some sort of a rail network downtown other than a streetcar.

Costs of building infrastructure, things like roads, have radically outpaced the national inflation rate. Meanwhile the funding for this stuff is stuck at a 1993 model.

Just look at the cost of NFL stadiums. They've always been examples of excess, but the concrete, steel and other materials going into them still make up the bulk of the cost. The Georgia Dome in Atlanta opened in 1992 and cost $210 million to build. Its replacement, Mercedes-Benz Stadium will cost over $1.5 billion. I don't know too many people who are making 7 times what they were making in 25 years ago.

Although if you go back to the early 20th century subway lines built in New York, the workers were paid significantly less even adjusted for inflation, and safety standards weren't as high. It was accepted that it was a dangerous job and some people would probably die.  They didn't try to kill workers, but they didn't take heroic measures to keep them safe at all costs, either.

No comments on the cost of land in any of these examples?

Sun Belt cities can build things cheaper also because of significantly cheaper land prices, so it's typically cheaper to build outward instead of downward/upward.

Until land prices become prohibitively expensive, I don't see why Sun Belt cities would tunnel. And we may never see that day.

Land costs are one thing. Regardless of location, any tunneling project in the United States is going to be outrageously expensive. Regarding mass transit rail, hardly any cities are building new rail lines underground. There are plenty of proposals (especially in Los Angeles) and they all cost way in the billions of dollars to build, but how many rail tunneling projects are actually moving forward? The 2nd Ave. Subway in New York City the only one I can think of immediately and that one has been a work in progress for over 40 years.

For mass transit rail, like "light rail," it's a whole lot cheaper (relatively speaking) to let a rail line eat much of a surface street and build overpass bridges where needed rather than tunnel underground.

QuoteAlthough if you go back to the early 20th century subway lines built in New York, the workers were paid significantly less even adjusted for inflation, and safety standards weren't as high. It was accepted that it was a dangerous job and some people would probably die.  They didn't try to kill workers, but they didn't take heroic measures to keep them safe at all costs, either.

Worker wages are not the primary thing driving up costs of building something like a subway tunnel, highway project or suspension bridge. The actual building materials cost far more in the US than they did 25 years ago. Then add in all the extra layers of red tape. That's probably a huge part of what's ballooning the costs if we're talking about certain people getting paychecks. We now have an environment in the United States where it is damned near impossible to build any really big civil engineering projects. Our nation has fallen way behind. The tallest skyscrapers, biggest bridges, longest tunnels, biggest dams, etc. are all outside of the United States now.

This thread topic would make an awesome regulatory sign legend.

Quote from: kphoger on January 16, 2017, 01:44:41 PM
This thread topic would make an awesome regulatory sign legend.

I'm sure that driving forward is OK in Wakefield (for real, where the hell is that?).

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 13, 2017, 12:00:44 PM
Costs of building infrastructure, things like roads, have radically outpaced the national inflation rate. Meanwhile the funding for this stuff is stuck at a 1993 model.

Just look at the cost of NFL stadiums. They've always been examples of excess, but the concrete, steel and other materials going into them still make up the bulk of the cost. The Georgia Dome in Atlanta opened in 1992 and cost $210 million to build. Its replacement, Mercedes-Benz Stadium will cost over $1.5 billion. I don't know too many people who are making 7 times what they were making in 25 years ago.

I get what you're saying, and I agree with you. I just wanted to add, strangely enough, that I made almost exactly 7 times more in 2016 than I did in 1992. It took a perfect confluence of age and job/life situations to make that happen so I lol'd at that just a bit. But yeah, for the most part I agree with you on that, too. If I had been employed full time with my current employer in 1992 I would probably only be making 2.5 to 3 times more now than I would have then.

I'm resurrecting this thread to mention that construction plans (90% completion or better) are now available for what OTA is now calling the Kilpatrick Turnpike Southwest Loop and the Eastern Oklahoma County Turnpike:

https://www.pikepass.com/Engineering/ProjectInformation.aspx?DrivingForward

Branding for the latter facility seems still to be a work in progress.  One set of plans has a variant of the road-dwindling-to-point marker with "E OK COUNTY" in place of "CIMARRON," "INDIAN NATION" etc., while another has advance guide signs for I-40 that identify it as "[floating dot] Placeholder [floating dot] Turnpike."

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 15, 2017, 10:43:16 AM
I'm resurrecting this thread to mention that construction plans (90% completion or better) are now available for what OTA is now calling the Kilpatrick Turnpike Southwest Loop and the Eastern Oklahoma County Turnpike:

https://www.pikepass.com/Engineering/ProjectInformation.aspx?DrivingForward

Branding for the latter facility seems still to be a work in progress.  One set of plans has a variant of the road-dwindling-to-point marker with "E OK COUNTY" in place of "CIMARRON," "INDIAN NATION" etc., while another has advance guide signs for I-40 that identify it as "[floating dot] Placeholder [floating dot] Turnpike."

Looks as if OTA will be fixing the I-40 interchange with the SW Kilpatrick by extending the Sara Rd overpass and making the interchange a full cloverleaf.

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 15, 2017, 10:43:16 AM
Branding for the latter facility seems still to be a work in progress.  One set of plans has a variant of the road-dwindling-to-point marker with "E OK COUNTY" in place of "CIMARRON," "INDIAN NATION" etc., while another has advance guide signs for I-40 that identify it as "[floating dot] Placeholder [floating dot] Turnpike."

The logical name for it would be the Choctaw Turnpike, as three of the other turnpikes (four if you count Muskogee as being named after the Creek Nation and not the town) are named after the five civilized tribes, and the turnpike runs fairly close to Choctaw, OK. The only minor downside is that the area is not actually part of the Choctaw tribal service area. Oklahoma County is more within the Chickasaw sphere of influence, and the two tribes have historically not gotten along very well, although I'd imagine the Chickasaws would be inclined to let it slide.

Complicating matters is what happens if it eventually ends up as part of a beltway around OKC.

A more sensible approach would be to get a 3xx number applied to it from the start, a la 364 and 351 in Tulsa. 340 and 344 would be eminently reasonable (and would leave it open for an Interstate designation at some point), but 302 would fit the scheme started in Tulsa, as 102 parallels it.

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 15, 2017, 07:04:40 PMThe logical name for it would be the Choctaw Turnpike, as three of the other turnpikes (four if you count Muskogee as being named after the Creek Nation and not the town) are named after the five civilized tribes, and the turnpike runs fairly close to Choctaw, OK. The only minor downside is that the area is not actually part of the Choctaw tribal service area. Oklahoma County is more within the Chickasaw sphere of influence, and the two tribes have historically not gotten along very well, although I'd imagine the Chickasaws would be inclined to let it slide.

Since this turnpike appears designed to function as a metropolitan bypass--the westside counterpart of the Kilpatrick Turnpike--I think it is equally probable that the present geographic designation will give way to naming after a key player in recent Oklahoma City revitalization efforts.  Norick Turnpike, perhaps?  It would then make sense for the Choctaws to get "their" turnpike as a US 69 upgrade south of McAlester; if memory serves, the US 69-75 Red River crossing leads into the Choctaw Nation.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/gilcrease-expressway-extension-update-how-much-will-drivers-pay-for/article_50ad32e6-595d-5879-8798-01e5e311e190.html?utm_content=buffer49947&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Took a trip to Lawton today and was able to grab the following pics of the soon-to-open Elgin Toll Plaza between Chickasha and Lawton.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4756/39752997981_edf20d6742.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23yQvjV)
WB approaching the toll plaza.  I saw the signage a little further on.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4618/39752999581_60f4fceb2b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23yQvNv)

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4603/38854375015_63be182615.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22cqQ2v)
All of the pavement in both directions has been completed and striped.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4748/39752998011_45ec5da6c7.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23yQvkr)
There was a crew working in the toll booth and near the awning.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4649/39752999191_5b7e4ccecd.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23yQvFM)
Just had to throw this atrocious sign in here

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4664/39752998541_21849fcaf7.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23yQvuz)
Eastbound at the Elgin toll plaza

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4674/38854374245_4283991e87.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22cqPNe)

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4705/39752998411_7351efdedd.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23yQvsk)

IMO, they could open this plaza as soon as next week. OTA still says January, but no date.

Thanks a million for the pictures!

Wow, what an ugly ass toll plaza. Why does nearly everything in Oklahoma have to be done the bare minimum and cheap. Smh

They only try to apply any effort on the visuals if the toll plaza or other project is built near Tulsa. With the project being built up the road from Lawton it's no surprise the design would be minimal. At least the function of the plaza will be a decent upgrade (allowing PikePass holders to drive thru at regular highway speed).

It's frustrating how long it has taken to build this toll plaza. Originally it was supposed to be finished this past fall. I can only guess how much longer the Walters toll plaza will take to complete. Maybe over a full year?

Oh, and yes, that sign near Elgin is very hideous. And that atrocious "design" has been there for quite a long time. There's other terrible examples in Lawton, but they kind of pale in comparison to that one.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4649/39752999191_5b7e4ccecd.jpg)

Who the hell was the contractor on this, Morton Buildings?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcharvoo.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F11%2Fhouse-plan-pole-barn-with-living-quarters-true-built-barns-kit-homesices-morton-buildings-list-home-floor-plans-metal.jpg&hash=9ef04a88d44416011b0cab5a7f9e1c0604565ea5)

Also, that 277 sign belongs in Worst of Road Signs.

Quote from: rte66man on January 17, 2018, 09:07:53 PM
the soon-to-open Elgin Toll Plaza between Chickasha and Lawton.

Sorry if I've asked this before, but...

Is this going to be an additional toll between OKC and Lawton, or is it taking the place of the Chickasha plaza, or what?

Quote from: kphoger on January 18, 2018, 11:50:52 AM

Quote from: rte66man on January 17, 2018, 09:07:53 PM
the soon-to-open Elgin Toll Plaza between Chickasha and Lawton.

Sorry if I've asked this before, but...

Is this going to be an additional toll between OKC and Lawton, or is it taking the place of the Chickasha plaza, or what?

Taking the place of the Chickasha plaza.

People here in Lawton were having a giant fit when the construction on the toll plaza started. It seemed like everyone thought there would now be two gates between Lawton and Chickasha. Still, even when told the new plaza would replace the old, slow one and give PikePass holders a speed benefit the locals here just lapsed back to the old "they need to take down the toll gates; the road is paid for" complaint. I'm sure it will be more of the same once the Walters project gets underway. Last time I checked it was supposed to start Summer 2018. I wouldn't be surprised to see that date pushed back some since it looks like quite a bit more work will be required. The old existing toll gate is literally under the OK-5 bridge spanning the turnpike. The bridge is old, in really crappy shape and probably needs to be replaced. Really the whole exit ought to be redone. I haven't seen project plans, but my guess is the Walters toll gate project may look similar in design to the new toll plaza on the Muskogee Turnpike at the OK-51 exit.

Even if the roads do become paid for, I still think they should continue to be toll roads. The new improved toll gate has cement roads leading to it. The roads are just asphalt in the Turner and Will Rogers turnpikes. I prefer they remain as toll roads and eventually upgrade the road surface. I also like to see Chickasaw Turnpike widened, and even extended to Duncan and Interstate 40 as originally planned. Also, The Unfinished Corridor could have been finished if there was a new Toll Road. Perhaps name it The Choctaw Turnpike. Since The Chickasaw and Choctaw are both unfinished, they are obvious examples to keep tolls. Also, toll plazas could be upgraded to include ramps that have bridges to directly connect to the outside lanes instead of the inside lanes. Oklahoma should keep going with Toll Projects of which I would gladly travel on them. Whether they are roads or [passenger] rail, funds are required to build both of them. The more toll roads Oklahoma builds, it can be proudly known as the state with the most Toll Roads!  :sombrero:

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 18, 2018, 12:33:37 PM
People here in Lawton were having a giant fit when the construction on the toll plaza started. It seemed like everyone thought there would now be two gates between Lawton and Chickasha. Still, even when told the new plaza would replace the old, slow one and give PikePass holders a speed benefit the locals here just lapsed back to the old "they need to take down the toll gates; the road is paid for" complaint. I'm sure it will be more of the same once the Walters project gets underway. Last time I checked it was supposed to start Summer 2018. I wouldn't be surprised to see that date pushed back some since it looks like quite a bit more work will be required. The old existing toll gate is literally under the OK-5 bridge spanning the turnpike. The bridge is old, in really crappy shape and probably needs to be replaced. Really the whole exit ought to be redone. I haven't seen project plans, but my guess is the Walters toll gate project may look similar in design to the new toll plaza on the Muskogee Turnpike at the OK-51 exit.

Well, they're not paid for anymore!  Now there's new debt to pay off:  toll plaza demolition and construction.  Just keep doing new projects, and you can claim it's never paid off.

The wear and tear from vehicle traffic alone is enough reason to keep the toll gates intact. Roads carry a lot more than their initial cost of construction. Maintenance is a big deal. None of the roads are free. We're going to pay for them either with fuel taxes or tolls. Take down the toll gates and everyone in Oklahoma will have to start paying quite a bit more in fuel taxes. It's almost like the motorist is having to draw from two different bank accounts to handle the same type of bill. He's still paying regardless of which account he uses.

Quote from: In_CorrectEven if the roads do become paid for, I still think they should continue to be toll roads. The new improved toll gate has cement roads leading to it. The roads are just asphalt in the Turner and Will Rogers turnpikes. I prefer they remain as toll roads and eventually upgrade the road surface. I also like to see Chickasaw Turnpike widened, and even extended to Duncan and Interstate 40 as originally planned.

The OTA has had all kinds of different planned turnpike concepts on their books over the years. The Chickasaw was one of the stinkers out of all those concepts, right along with the Duncan to Davis turnpike and Clinton to Snyder turnpike. But unlike the other bad ideas, at least some of this one got built. It's a sure bet the road generates nothing near the traffic levels and toll revenue needed to pay for itself. It doesn't connect to any major destinations. Even the bigger Davis to Ada to Henryetta concept would have done little to move regional traffic faster, again because it doesn't provide any kind of short cut to major destinations.

I think OTA needs to work mainly on improving existing turnpikes rather than building new ones. And if they're going to come up with a new turnpike concept they could at least develop something that would fit well into the big picture view of the national highway system. I think there should be an Oklahoma City to Denver Interstate, diagonal in nature just like I-44. Such a route could cut across Oklahoma from Woodward to Idabel and then ultimately give the cities on the Rockies Front Range a direct SE path to the Gulf of Mexico, via OKC and Texarkana. I think such a route as a toll road would generate positive revenue levels rather than be a drain. But for such a corridor to materialize the planners would need to involve leaders in other states to get such an idea off that ground.

I agree with the OKC to Denver. It could be extended SE as well to give OKC and Denver a more direct route to New Orleans.

A US 69 turnpike is the one that is the most needed.

As far as the Davis to Henryetta turnpike goes, it would be a good alternate route from Tulsa to DFW, especially the western parts of the metro. US 69 really, really sucks and is a terribly painful road to drive.

A superhighway upgrade of US-69 from the Red River to Big Cabin is badly needed. The corridor is being upgraded, but very slowly. Building the rest as a turnpike might make the conversion happen a lot faster. The slow trickle of fuel tax dollars would make the process take decades. The same thing goes for a turnpike that could connect OKC directly to Denver and Texarkana (and the Gulf Coast via I-49).

Too many OTA turnpike proposals have not had such big picture views to compliment the overall Interstate highway system. Concepts that spur off Interstates at right angles, going from one remote location to another remote location do not compliment the broader system. Again, I'm talking about the silly Duncan-Davis and Clinton-Snyder ideas from the 1990's.

The Davis to Ada to Henrietta turnpike idea is a fairly big "L" shape route. That wouldn't save motorists heading from Tulsa to Dallas any time at all versus just taking the US-75 and US-69 combination straight South, or even taking I-44 to I-35 in OKC.

The Indian Nation Turnpike might be decent at helping traffic from Hugo and McAlester get to Tulsa a little faster, but it does nothing to compliment the overall Interstate highway system. That turnpike is designed only to serve traffic in Oklahoma not any longer distance travel.

There was an OKC to Woodward turnpike concept on one of the old OTA planning maps, but that never was pursued. I'd still like to see such a thing happen. For one thing the OK-3 route between Okarche and Watonga is just stupid. A new turnpike could span that big gap directly.

The north part of the Indian Nation Turnpike is useful in getting from Tulsa to Dallas and points south. The south part is less useful.

The upper part of the Indian Nation Turnpike between Henryetta to McAlester is only useful because it connects into the US-69 corridor heading directly to DFW. Overall the turnpike is sort of a road pointing nowhere. No offense to Antlers and Hugo, but those towns are too small to serve as the destination for a turnpike over 100 miles in length.

And then there's the backward idiocy present on the US-69 corridor South of McAlester. One would think if only certain portions of US-69 were going to be upgraded to a freeway or turnpike the segment between McAlester and the Red River would have received by far the highest priority. That segment of US-69 not only carries a huge amount of heavy truck traffic headed from Texas (and Mexico) to the Northeast US but it is also funneling Tulsa-Dallas traffic on the same road as well, hence the concurrency with US-75 on that stretch. But no. Our state's myopic, Oklahoma-only thinking legislators chose to upgrade most (but not all) of US-69 between McAlester and Muskogee. It's even more of a head-scratcher that they didn't upgrade US-75 between Tulsa and Henryetta into a freeway or turnpike, even in terms of Oklahoma-only thinking.

When they actually try to think in terms of larger corridors it's all fantasy world bull crap. I could only laugh at the pie in the sky stuff they were selling with the Clinton to Snyder turnpike idea. That was supposed to be Western Oklahoma's version of US-75, spurring all sorts of economic growth and be the first segment of what would be a Mexico to Canada corridor. The sales pitch was contradictory. On one hand the corridor would serve as a very big (and expensive) bypass avoiding all the traffic on I-35 and US-75/US-69. But then it was supposed to spur all sorts of growth in Western OK, which would create a whole lot of traffic if the ploy was successful. The proposal ignored so many variables that make US-75 and US-69 in Eastern OK so much more important. Maybe if there was a diagonal Interstate connecting OKC and Denver that might have given something like a Woodward to Clinton to Snyder turnpike some legitimacy. But not at all with the current Interstate network.

US 75 still has a traffic light in Glenpool. From Okmulgee all the way to Bartlesville with no traffic lights...except for that one. It gets really backed up during rush hour, as does SB US 75 just south of the I-244 split during the afternoon rush.

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 15, 2017, 10:43:16 AM
Branding for the latter facility seems still to be a work in progress.  One set of plans has a variant of the road-dwindling-to-point marker with "E OK COUNTY" in place of "CIMARRON," "INDIAN NATION" etc., while another has advance guide signs for I-40 that identify it as "[floating dot] Placeholder [floating dot] Turnpike."

Didn't comment on it when it was new, but I took the time to extract this panel because I think it's hilarious to see.

(https://i.imgur.com/IJIPVbU.png)

I am hoping that somehow OTA fails to patch this out and the contractor actually fabricates a Placeholder Turnpike sign...

It would be even funnier if the fix for that error were simply to name the whole thing Placeholder Turnpike.

Like to see them name it the Pottawatomie Turnpike for that location is on Pottawatomie territory. They'd likely squeeze the letters together to fit - like we've seen elsewhere. Or redo the sign.

Quote from: rte66man on January 17, 2018, 09:07:53 PM
Took a trip to Lawton today and was able to grab the following pics of the soon-to-open Elgin Toll Plaza between Chickasha and Lawton.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4603/38854375015_63be182615.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22cqQ2v)
All of the pavement in both directions has been completed and striped.

What an ugly looking toll plaza.  Up here, our tollway authority has been building things like this: https://goo.gl/maps/HgrQRP8rXnq

Quote from: Brandon on February 01, 2018, 03:58:59 PM
What an ugly looking toll plaza.  Up here, our tollway authority has been building things like this: https://goo.gl/maps/HgrQRP8rXnq

What's the purpose of the walkway above the toll plaza?

[edited to add quote for clarity]

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 01, 2018, 07:52:40 PM
What's the purpose of the walkway above the toll plaza?

Is it a walkway? I thought it was a gantry for Pikepass readers.

Quote from: roadguy2 on February 01, 2018, 08:34:53 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 01, 2018, 07:52:40 PM
What's the purpose of the walkway above the toll plaza?

Is it a walkway? I thought it was a gantry for Pikepass readers.

In the Google Maps link, not the visible photo.

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 01, 2018, 07:52:40 PM

Quote from: Brandon on February 01, 2018, 03:58:59 PM
What an ugly looking toll plaza.  Up here, our tollway authority has been building things like this: https://goo.gl/maps/HgrQRP8rXnq

What's the purpose of the walkway above the toll plaza?

[edited to add quote for clarity]

Most likely so the people manning the cash booths can get across the tollway safely without having to get in a vehicle.

That toll plaza on I-88 likely cost a shit-ton of money to build. It looks like it has elevators on both sides of the highway. I would expect an air-conditioned, indoor highway crossing like that at a service plaza featuring restaurants and a convenience store. But all that just for a toll plaza? That's a bit much.

I heard the new toll plaza on I-44 between Lawton and Chickasha will open next Tuesday evening, February 13. I wonder how long it will take to demolish the old toll plaza on the South side of Chickasha.

The new toll plaza on the Muskogee Turnpike at Coweta has been open for a few months now.

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 01, 2018, 07:52:40 PM

Quote from: Brandon on February 01, 2018, 03:58:59 PM
What an ugly looking toll plaza.  Up here, our tollway authority has been building things like this: https://goo.gl/maps/HgrQRP8rXnq

What's the purpose of the walkway above the toll plaza?

That's an optical illusion.  Go back to post #149.  There is a closeup that shows each direction has 2 gantries, one for the signage and one for the Pikepass readers

Quote from: rte66man on February 10, 2018, 08:21:11 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 01, 2018, 07:52:40 PM

Quote from: Brandon on February 01, 2018, 03:58:59 PM
What an ugly looking toll plaza.  Up here, our tollway authority has been building things like this: https://goo.gl/maps/HgrQRP8rXnq

What's the purpose of the walkway above the toll plaza?

That's an optical illusion.  Go back to post #149.  There is a closeup that shows each direction has 2 gantries, one for the signage and one for the Pikepass readers

The walkway above the toll plaza in the link given is in Illinois. Post #149 is in Oklahoma. The walkway above the toll plaza definitely exists and is not an optical illusion.

Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2018, 11:18:15 AM

Quote from: rte66man on February 10, 2018, 08:21:11 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 01, 2018, 07:52:40 PM

Quote from: Brandon on February 01, 2018, 03:58:59 PM
What an ugly looking toll plaza.  Up here, our tollway authority has been building things like this: https://goo.gl/maps/HgrQRP8rXnq

Sorry, I thought they were referring to the Elgin, OK plaza.

What's the purpose of the walkway above the toll plaza?

That's an optical illusion.  Go back to post #149.  There is a closeup that shows each direction has 2 gantries, one for the signage and one for the Pikepass readers

The walkway above the toll plaza in the link given is in Illinois. Post #149 is in Oklahoma. The walkway above the toll plaza definitely exists and is not an optical illusion.

I was on the Turnpike sections of Interstate 44. While Interstate 35 has much more traffic, Interstate 44 Turnpikes are filled with traffic.

Even though I-44 doesn't have its number ending in a "5" or "0" it is still a major route in the Interstate system. It's basically the main road linking the NE United States to destinations in the Southwest US. The road needs at least 3 lanes in each direction between OKC and Tulsa. I think there's other stretches of it in Oklahoma and Missouri that should be widened as well.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 01, 2018, 03:32:45 PM
Even though I-44 doesn't have its number ending in a "5" or "0" it is still a major route in the Interstate system. It's basically the main road linking the NE United States to destinations in the Southwest US. The road needs at least 3 lanes in each direction between OKC and Tulsa. I think there's other stretches of it in Oklahoma and Missouri that should be widened as well.

I would second that.  Between those stretches, and I-40 between L.R. and Memphis should take care of most of the bottlenecks in mid-America.

Some good drone pics documenting the progress.

https://m.facebook.com/pg/immersivememories/photos/?tab=album&album_id=2152665715000218

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 02, 2018, 03:55:24 PM
Some good drone pics documenting the progress.

https://m.facebook.com/pg/immersivememories/photos/?tab=album&album_id=2152665715000218

Wow, great find. Thanks.

Quote from: rte66man on October 10, 2018, 08:40:29 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 02, 2018, 03:55:24 PM
Some good drone pics documenting the progress.

https://m.facebook.com/pg/immersivememories/photos/?tab=album&album_id=2152665715000218

Wow, great find. Thanks.

Actually I found it from OKCTalk thread of all places LOL

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 01, 2018, 03:32:45 PM
Even though I-44 doesn't have its number ending in a "5" or "0" it is still a major route in the Interstate system. It's basically the main road linking the NE United States to destinations in the Southwest US. The road needs at least 3 lanes in each direction between OKC and Tulsa. I think there's other stretches of it in Oklahoma and Missouri that should be widened as well.

I-44 between OKC and St Louis is a major national route. I-44 "west" (really south) of OKC is a less important regional spur route. It really should be I-535.

In it's current form between Wichita Falls and OKC it is a spur route. It's long enough to justify a 2-digit designation. I think the Interstate ought to be extended down to I-20 in Abilene, if not farther down to San Angelo. It wouldn't be hard to do. US-277 between Wichita Falls and Abilene has been four-laned and given a few near-Interstate quality upgrades in towns along the way.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 12, 2018, 01:56:35 PM
In it's current form between Wichita Falls and OKC it is a spur route. It's long enough to justify a 2-digit designation.

I don't think there's any need to use up another number, when 44 works just fine.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 12, 2018, 01:56:35 PM
I think the Interstate ought to be extended down to I-20 in Abilene, if not farther down to San Angelo. It wouldn't be hard to do. US-277 between Wichita Falls and Abilene has been four-laned and given a few near-Interstate quality upgrades in towns along the way.

Did they finally finish the last part between Holliday and Seymour?  I haven't driven it since March.

Anson would be the real challenge, although I think a new-alignment bypass along the eastern edge of town would be feasible.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 12, 2018, 01:56:35 PM
In it's its current form between Wichita Falls and OKC it is a spur route. It's long enough to justify a 2-digit designation. I think the Interstate ought to be extended down to I-20 in Abilene, if not farther down to San Angelo. It wouldn't be hard to do. US-277 between Wichita Falls and Abilene has been four-laned and given a few near-Interstate quality upgrades in towns along the way.

There are higher priorities (actual or perceived): Dallas to Amarillo, Austin to Houston, I-14, and I-69.

Also keep in mind that most US routes in the middle of nowhere in Texas are 75 MPH already. I'm not sure about US 277, but I would guess that it is.

Quote from: 1 on October 12, 2018, 02:07:11 PM
Also keep in mind that most US routes in the middle of nowhere in Texas are 75 MPH already. I'm not sure about US 277, but I would guess that it is.

US-277 is 75 mph for most of its route all the way to Del Rio.  The sections that aren't 75 are 65 or 70, and those are basically the curvy bits south of Abilene and areas near towns.  It's almost exclusively 75 mph from Wichita Falls to Abilene.  The two- and three-lane sections that were still left north of Seymour were 65 mph, but it sounds like those have now been twinned since I was there last.

Quote from: kphogerDid they finally finish the last part between Holliday and Seymour?  I haven't driven it since March.

That stretch should have all been completed for some time. It has been a couple or so years since I last drove that route. When I did the only part between Holliday and Seymour that wasn't four-laned was the stretch thru Dundee. The bypass was under construction at that time. I would be shocked if that wasn't finished.

TX DOT has plans to extend Kell Freeway on the SW corner of Wichita Falls to connect to the bypass around Holliday. I don't know when they're going to start building it. But that's by far the biggest hurdle in the way of extending I-44 toward Abilene.

Quote from: XThere are higher priorities (actual or perceived): Dallas to Amarillo, Austin to Houston, I-14, and I-69.

I would agree US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo needs an Interstate upgrade desperately. Truck traffic on that route is ridiculous. But then so is truck traffic on US-69 in Oklahoma; maybe even worse, but there doesn't seem to be any hurry to upgrade that one into an extension of I-45. Regardless, I've driven on US-287 enough to really want an Interstate-class route.

The overall grand scheme of I-14 is a giant pile of wasteful pork. The only parts of it that are justifiable at all is the stretch from Killeen to College Station and over to Huntsville. But the jagged, saw-tooth path they have proposed inspires me to root against it ever getting completed. I can't emphasize enough how much I hate crooked, jagged, mileage wasting Interstate routes. I hate a bunch of I-69 for the same reason. Interstates are supposed to be direct, time-saving routes. They shouldn't bend all over the place like some po-dunk 2-lane section line gravel road. But that's what we have going now with both I-14 and I-69. They stink.

An I-44 extension to Abilene and San Angelo is justifiable. I-35 is an over-loaded NAFTA corridor. I-44 is another important SW to NE national route. Connecting it to the Mexico border via an I-27 extension would create a good relief route for commercial traffic on I-35. Plus it would provide a good option for traffic coming from places like Southern AZ or CA and headed to points in the Northeast. They would be able to bypass DFW while staying on Interstate quality road the whole way.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 13, 2018, 01:27:10 AM
An I-44 extension to Abilene and San Angelo is justifiable. I-35 is an over-loaded NAFTA corridor. I-44 is another important SW to NE national route. Connecting it to the Mexico border via an I-27 extension would create a good relief route for commercial traffic on I-35.

You say that as if "the Mexican border" is either a destination or origin of commercial traffic.  In reality, though, "Monterrey" or "Laredo" or "Fort Worth" is the destination or origin.  Any alternative to I-35 that utilizes I-44 would only be useful for NAFTA traffic if it connects to Laredo at the south end and Oklahoma City at the north end (which means it would not be serving NAFTA traffic with an origin or destination between those two points), and I'm struggling to imagine how that would use any sort of I-27 extension.  Do you imagine an I-27 extension reaching all the way to Laredo?

I-277 south of San Angelo has almost zero long-haul truck traffic, in my experience–especially south of Sonora.  Del Rio is just not a huge cross-border destination.

Quote from: kphogerDo you imagine an I-27 extension reaching all the way to Laredo?

It's one possibility, one that is part of the overall Ports to Plains Corridor. The Ports to Plains Corridor does run from San Angelo down to Del Rio and then farther South along the Rio Grande to Piedras Negras, Carrizo Springs and Laredo. Then the corridor runs down to the Rio Grande Valley cities at the coast. Best case long-term scenario, but still also a long shot, both I-27 and I-2 could meet in Laredo, but with I-27 hitting two other border cities before reaching Laredo.

Obviously Del Rio is not as busy a border crossing as Laredo. Monterrey has a major highway linking to Nuevo Laredo in a very direct path. I-35 is just across the border. US-277 North out of Del Rio is not a major highway; it's pretty much all 2-lane between Del Rio and San Angelo. Traffic levels could increase if the Ports to Plains Corridor was fleshed out completely.

Another possibility for extending I-27 is having it go from San Angelo to end at I-10 in Junction. That would give places like Lubbock & Amarillo a direct Interstate-quality route to San Antonio and points farther South and East.

If either of those versions of I-27 can be built thru San Angelo it would give I-44 a good reason to be extended to San Angelo as well. Meanwhile, I think TX DOT can slowly but steadily improve US-277 between Wichita Falls and Abilene. That would at least eliminate the current dead end of I-44 in Wichita Falls.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 14, 2018, 11:52:28 PM
Obviously Del Rio is not as busy a border crossing as Laredo. Monterrey has a major highway linking to Nuevo Laredo in a very direct path. I-35 is just across the border. US-277 North out of Del Rio is not a major highway; it's pretty much all 2-lane between Del Rio and San Angelo.

But I think that reasoning is backwards.  The San Antonio—Monterrey corridor is a big four-lane highway because that's where the traffic is.  To say that's where the traffic is because it's a major highway doesn't make sense.  Monterrey has a huge industrial sector, making stuff that gets shipped to America; the two Laredos have trucking firms and drayage yards by the dozen.  In contrast, the industrial zone in Coahuila south of Del Rio (Allende, Sabinas, Monclova, Castaños) is more focused on producing raw materials like steel and coal, rather than consumer goods for export to the States.  That's why I was saying the only way an I-35 bypass through Texas would be valuable to cross-border traffic would be if it connected to Laredo and some other major shipping node in the USA.

To repeat it a little more clearly: the Ports to Plains Corridor goes through both Del Rio and Laredo on the way down to the coast. It doesn't dead end in Del Rio. The grand plan would appear to extend both I-27 and I-2 to Laredo. That's not my fantasy. I would just as soon extend I-27 directly (in a direct diagonal path) to Junction, TX and end it at I-10 there. It would be a less costly extension; something that could ultimately create a San Antonio to Denver corridor.

There is a hell of a lot of traffic and development along I-35. Laredo is also a very busy border crossing. Not every person driving on I-35 in Texas is going to a destination along I-35 in Texas. Right now most traffic headed from South Texas to places up in the Texas Panhandle, Oklahoma or points farther North would at least take I-35 up to San Antonio before leaving I-35 for other alternatives. There's no good high capacity/high speed alternative highway. Some people who frequently must use I-35 might like it if some of that long distance traffic took a different route. Extensions of I-27 and I-44 could get a bunch of that traffic around the San Antonio, Austin and DFW metro areas.

In the eastern US there's a few Interstates that work as bypass routes for more major routes. I-81 in conjunction with other routes (like I-78 and I-84) helps filter a lot of traffic from busy parts of I-95. I-35 needs something like that in Texas. Aside from the Ports to Plains Corridor it's also possible US-281 going North out of San Antonio could at least be four-laned all the way to Wichita Falls with freeway upgrades in key places.

According to the turnpike authorities twitter page, the first 8 miles of the Turner Turnpike widening and reconstruction is officially opened.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 17, 2018, 06:10:30 AM
According to the turnpike authorities twitter page, the first 8 miles of the Turner Turnpike widening and reconstruction is officially opened.

I'll try to check it out in the next few days. I'll be sure to get pictures.

Nexus 5X

That would be very appreciated, Bugo! From the picture I saw from OTA, the quality of the final product looks amazing! Didn't really get to see any signage or interchanges thought, only the mainline. The mainline looks to be on par with the recently reconstructed Illinois Tollway sections in west Chicago.

I drove to OKC in July to see the Smashing Pumpkins. The road looked pretty impressive at that time. It is an unusual rural interstate in that it is one wide carriageway with a Jersey-style barrier for a median.

Nexus 5X

The design similar to other tolled stretches of I-44 in Oklahoma. It's just wider (3 lanes each way and better inner and outer shoulders). Other parts of I-44 look like a single roadway with a Jersey barrier (or cable barrier) down the middle.

On the other hand, the newly completed stretch of I-44 near Tulsa has a little more of an urban freeway look. It could just be the width of the roadway doing that. The lighting adds another city-style touch.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 22, 2018, 01:12:08 PM
The design similar to other tolled stretches of I-44 in Oklahoma. It's just wider (3 lanes each way and better inner and outer shoulders). Other parts of I-44 look like a single roadway with a Jersey barrier (or cable barrier) down the middle.

On the other hand, the newly completed stretch of I-44 near Tulsa has a little more of an urban freeway look. It could just be the width of the roadway doing that. The lighting adds another city-style touch.

That stretch of I-44 in Tulsa you're referring to is one of the most impressive stretches of urban freeway in Oklahoma, IMO. Though Hefner Parkway might be my favorite freeway in Oklahoma.

Hefner Parkway looks pretty decent, but I think it's mostly because of the green scenery and lake nearby. The bridges over the highway are kind of unique looking. And they have no support pylons in the median, giving them a cleaner and less cluttered appearance.

I like the new I-40 through downtown OKC, but I do wish the scenery next to the new road was better. As downtown OKC continues to develop I'm sure the corridor's appearance will improve. I also like the re-built stretch of I-35 in Norman from OK-9 up to the Main Street exit. I wish some of I-44 in Lawton could get re-worked at least a little bit like that. The Gore Blvd exit really needs to be re-done as a SPUI. The double traffic lights on Gore Blvd are causing all kinds of backups on the main lanes of Gore Blvd and one of the I-44 off ramps. During rush hour I routinely see WB I-44 traffic exiting for Gore Blvd backing up along the full length of the off-ramp and onto the right lane of the highway. It takes way too long to get through that intersection.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 22, 2018, 07:50:41 PM
Hefner Parkway looks pretty decent, but I think it's mostly because of the green scenery and lake nearby. The bridges over the highway are kind of unique looking. And they have no support pylons in the median, giving them a cleaner and less cluttered appearance.

I like the new I-40 through downtown OKC, but I do wish the scenery next to the new road was better. As downtown OKC continues to develop I'm sure the corridor's appearance will improve. I also like the re-built stretch of I-35 in Norman from OK-9 up to the Main Street exit. I wish some of I-44 in Lawton could get re-worked at least a little bit like that. The Gore Blvd exit really needs to be re-done as a SPUI. The double traffic lights on Gore Blvd are causing all kinds of backups on the main lanes of Gore Blvd and one of the I-44 off ramps. During rush hour I routinely see WB I-44 traffic exiting for Gore Blvd backing up along the full length of the off-ramp and onto the right lane of the highway. It takes way too long to get through that intersection.

C'mon Bobby, you know ODOT doesn't like to spend money in Lawton...   :poke:

The Eastern Oklahoma County Turnpike has been officially designated the Kickapoo Turnpike https://www.drivingforwardok.com/northeast-ok-county-loop

Quote from: okc1 on September 25, 2019, 08:49:07 AM
The Eastern Oklahoma County Turnpike has been officially designated the Kickapoo Turnpike https://www.drivingforwardok.com/northeast-ok-county-loop

Fits with the trend. Since 1970, we have:
- Chickasaw
- Cherokee
- Creek
- Cimarron
- Kilpatrick

and now Kickapoo

4 of 6 named after tribes.  Still not sure what HE Bailey had on the Commission when he got a pike named after him.  Being Chief Traffic Engineer for decades should not have warranted such an honor IMO

If they ever build another toll road in Oklahoma after the Eastern Oklahoma County/Kickapoo Turnpike is completed, I wonder what name they would give it? Any suggestions?

Quote from: rte66man on September 26, 2019, 03:54:01 PMStill not sure what HE Bailey had on the Commission when he got a pike named after him.  Being Chief Traffic Engineer for decades should not have warranted such an honor IMO

He was apparently the founding director (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._E._Bailey) of the OTA as well as head (1947-1951) of the Oklahoma Highway Commission.

"Muskogee" is what the Creeks call themselves, so technically the Creeks got two turnpikes. Cimarron, meanwhile, derives from the Cimarron River, which probably comes from the Spanish cimarrón, wild, untamed.

The Choctaws and Seminoles are the other two of the Five Civilized Tribes that do not have a turnpike named after themselves. The Indian Nation Turnpike would have been the perfect opportunity to name one after the Choctaws,  but that didn't happen, for whatever reason.

Quote from: The GhostbusterIf they ever build another toll road in Oklahoma after the Eastern Oklahoma County/Kickapoo Turnpike is completed, I wonder what name they would give it? Any suggestions?

The "Slapahoe Turnpike" or "Kickabich Turnpike?"

I've wondered from time to time why H.E. Bailey's name was applied to what are effectively two separate turnpikes (well, 3 now considering the "extension" that failed to make it from I-44 to I-35).

I don't have a problem with the guy getting his name applied to at least one of the sections. But maybe the segment between Lawton and Wichita Falls could have been named something else. We do have a bunch of tribes in this part of the state. The Comanche tribe is the big one, followed by the Kiowa tribe, Apache tribe and others. Lawton is home to Fort Sill and Wichita Falls is home to Sheppard AFB. Maybe the toll road between Lawton and Wichita Falls could have been given a military themed name.

I just had a disturbing idea: what if the OTA started selling turnpike naming rights to corporations, like the naming practices of sports stadiums? That would really suck.

The Bailey Turnpike isn't the only one with multiple segments. The Muskogee Turnpike and the Creek Turnpike have free segments, and the Cimarron Turnpike has a spur that isn't a part of US 412.

Quote from: okc1 on September 25, 2019, 08:49:07 AM
The Eastern Oklahoma County Turnpike has been officially designated the Kickapoo Turnpike https://www.drivingforwardok.com/northeast-ok-county-loop

They could have called it the "CPK" turnpike. (not to be confused with California Pizza Kitchen), for the Kickapoo and Citizen Potawatomi nations,  since the northern end is in the Kickapoo Nation, the southern end is within the Citizen Potawatomi Nation.

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 26, 2019, 07:59:38 PM
"Muskogee" is what the Creeks call themselves, so technically the Creeks got two turnpikes. Cimarron, meanwhile, derives from the Cimarron River, which probably comes from the Spanish cimarrón, wild, untamed.

The Choctaws and Seminoles are the other two of the Five Civilized Tribes that do not have a turnpike named after themselves. The Indian Nation Turnpike would have been the perfect opportunity to name one after the Choctaws,  but that didn't happen, for whatever reason.

I agree, the Indian Nation, should be given the Choctaw name, since only a small part of the northern section, is within the Creek Nation.

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 26, 2019, 07:59:38 PM
"Muskogee" is what the Creeks call themselves, so technically the Creeks got two turnpikes. Cimarron, meanwhile, derives from the Cimarron River, which probably comes from the Spanish cimarrón, wild, untamed.

Muscogee*

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 27, 2019, 12:09:26 AM

Quote from: The GhostbusterIf they ever build another toll road in Oklahoma after the Eastern Oklahoma County/Kickapoo Turnpike is completed, I wonder what name they would give it? Any suggestions?

The "Slapahoe Turnpike" or "Kickabich Turnpike?"

I've wondered from time to time why H.E. Bailey's name was applied to what are effectively two separate turnpikes (well, 3 now considering the "extension" that failed to make it from I-44 to I-35).

I don't have a problem with the guy getting his name applied to at least one of the sections. But maybe the segment between Lawton and Wichita Falls could have been named something else. We do have a bunch of tribes in this part of the state. The Comanche tribe is the big one, followed by the Kiowa tribe, Apache tribe and others. Lawton is home to Fort Sill and Wichita Falls is home to Sheppard AFB. Maybe the toll road between Lawton and Wichita Falls could have been given a military themed name.

I just had a disturbing idea: what if the OTA started selling turnpike naming rights to corporations, like the naming practices of sports stadiums? That would really suck.

I could see these happening if the residents of an urban neighborhood were allowed to name highways

I just thought of of one: the THOT Thruway.

The Route 66 and Turner Turnpike Split SW of the I-44/244 interchange will be redesigned and reconstructed. It appears from the article that a new flyover will carry cars over I-44 to remove the left hand exit which is great news if that is the case.

" OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority gave its approval Wednesday for a $39 million interchange modification project at the Tulsa end of the Turner Turnpike.

The OTA agreed to let Director Tim Gatz enter an agreement with the Oklahoma Department of Transportation for an interchange modification where Interstate 44 and Oklahoma 66 meet. Gatz also serves as state transportation secretary and ODOT director."

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/tuls...60ce62947.html

Next up they need to tackle the I-44/I-244 interchange where the Gilcrease Tollway will be expanded to. A design like the 91 and 5 interchanges in OC would be cool.

I think the future interchange of the Gilcrease Tollway with I-44 & I-244 ought to be a 4-level directional stack. But Oklahoma's state legislature will never sign off on such a thing (even with it being in Tulsa). Any upgrades to that interchange will, no doubt, involve at least a couple cloverleaf loops. And the project will take at least 10 years to build.

Aside from that pessimism, I am happy to hear the OTA is finally going to do something about that awful I-44/OK-66 split on the SW side of Tulsa. Despite the overhead sign on the approach to that Y split it's pretty easy to make a wrong turn there. The Y split is kind of subtle and the left exit for OK-66 is 2 lanes wide. If your brain is in the slightest bit of auto-pilot mode you can easily end up on the wrong road. In heavy traffic you can get forced onto the wrong road.

I've made that wrong turn at least 3 times over the years, meaning to stay on I-44 but ending up on OK-66. It's about a 5 mile drive to the next I-44 WB entry ramp. The situation is possibly worse for people intending to take the OK-66 exit. The last free exit is immediately just past the I-44/OK-66 Y. And that ramp to 57th W. Avenue is a very short ramp. If they get stuck on I-44 they have to drive 6 miles down to the OK-97/N 9th Street exit and pay a toll.

A new ramp configuration to eliminate the 2-lane wide left exit for OK-66 should help eliminate most of the wrong turns.

^^^ LOL I have went the wrong way through there more times then I care to mention.

That I-44 exit (221A) is still the same bad, hard right design as it has been for many years. The only thing that changed is OTA relocated that PikePass office elsewhere. But anyone wanting to get off I-44 in a last ditch attempt to shun-pike needs to already be in the right line (and ready to stop all of a sudden) if they want to make that exit.

That exit ramp on I-44 may be really bad, but I've seen much worse. I swear I don't know what's going on in Colorado with some of the exit ramps there. Such as this abomination on I-25 in Colorado at "Exit 106": https://bit.ly/2PltnMP (https://bit.ly/2PltnMP)
When I passed by that spot over the past holiday weekend the normal exit sign wasn't there anymore. The replacement exit sign was the size of an ordinary neighborhood street name sign. I-25 in Colorado has a number of other hard turn entrance and exit ramps.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 05, 2019, 10:43:31 PM
Aside from that pessimism, I am happy to hear the OTA is finally going to do something about that awful I-44/OK-66 split on the SW side of Tulsa. Despite the overhead sign on the approach to that Y split it's pretty easy to make a wrong turn there. The Y split is kind of subtle and the left exit for OK-66 is 2 lanes wide. If your brain is in the slightest bit of auto-pilot mode you can easily end up on the wrong road. In heavy traffic you can get forced onto the wrong road.

What got me was that dancing arrow. It seems to say to bear left, and so I bore left, and found myself so very confused to see turn lanes and businesses on the Interstate.

(https://i.imgur.com/k1F0wzc.png)

The ramp from NB US 75 to EB I-44 and the EB I-44 C/D lane is currently closed. There is no signed detour and could be very confusing to outsiders. The stretch from 75 to the river is under construction. It's a mess.

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 07, 2019, 05:05:48 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 05, 2019, 10:43:31 PM
Aside from that pessimism, I am happy to hear the OTA is finally going to do something about that awful I-44/OK-66 split on the SW side of Tulsa. Despite the overhead sign on the approach to that Y split it's pretty easy to make a wrong turn there. The Y split is kind of subtle and the left exit for OK-66 is 2 lanes wide. If your brain is in the slightest bit of auto-pilot mode you can easily end up on the wrong road. In heavy traffic you can get forced onto the wrong road.

What got me was that dancing arrow. It seems to say to bear left, and so I bore left, and found myself so very confused to see turn lanes and businesses on the Interstate.

(https://i.imgur.com/k1F0wzc.png)

Not helping matters there is ODOT's refusal to use double diagonal up arrows for exit direction signs.

Visually, the two left lanes moving downward, under an overpass is what confused me one of the times I took the wrong turn. The lanes rising up at the right look like an exit ramp. If the driver's brain is running on auto pilot at all (and he didn't notice the signs) his first instinct may be to stay left in order to stay on the turnpike.

Wow...  This was really not making sense to me...  Until I realized that I-44 West and OK-66 split in both Tulsa and Oklahoma City.  I was trying to make the OKC junction fit what I was seeing the picture, and it just wasn't working.

I wasn't paying attention to the legend, just the shields and lane configuration.

That interchange used to be much worse. Interstate 44 used to have a shorter, direct route, but it had a sloppy interchange. You can not get to the old alignment any more, but it is still there.

Quote from: In_Correct on December 09, 2019, 10:10:01 PM
That interchange used to be much worse. Interstate 44 used to have a shorter, direct route, but it had a sloppy interchange. You can not get to the old alignment any more, but it is still there.

I think you're thinking of the other OTHER I-44/SH-66 split, on the east side of Tulsa. This one is on the west side of Tulsa.

Up until the early 1980s, it may have even been as late as like 1988; at the Turnpike/66 split, there was not even an overpass there, the traffic on 66 heading to Sapulpa had a left exit and a stop sign.  There was also a regular grade crossings at 61st Street, 49th W Ave, and at 55th Street, and a rail crossing before 33rd W Avenue.

Quote from: will_e_777 on December 19, 2019, 09:37:11 PM
Up until the early 1980s, it may have even been as late as like 1988; at the Turnpike/66 split, there was not even an overpass there, the traffic on 66 heading to Sapulpa had a left exit and a stop sign.  There was also a regular grade crossings at 61st Street, 49th W Ave, and at 55th Street, and a rail crossing before 33rd W Avenue.

It was replaced sometime between 1974 and 1977

The Kilpatrick Turnpike extension to OK-152 is scheduled to open on January 9. I believe this is over a year ahead of the original schedule.

https://oklahoman.com/article/5651628/partial-opening-scheduled-for-kilpatrick-turnpikes-southwest-extension

The 7.5-mile Southwest Extension will provide a loop through the southwest part of Oklahoma City, beginning where the John Kilpatrick Turnpike now ends at Interstate 40 in west Oklahoma City and linking up with State Highway 152, also known as Airport Road, in south Oklahoma City.

A ribbon-cutting ceremony is scheduled for 10 a.m. Thursday on a section of the new turnpike just east of Morgan Road.

Initially just the westbound/northbound lanes will open, but lanes going the opposite direction are expected to open in a couple of weeks

Oh sweet, I'm off that day, and I've got a PikePass...

Quote from: Chris on January 07, 2020, 01:52:06 PM
The Kilpatrick Turnpike extension to OK-152 is scheduled to open on January 9. I believe this is over a year ahead of the original schedule.

https://oklahoman.com/article/5651628/partial-opening-scheduled-for-kilpatrick-turnpikes-southwest-extension

The 7.5-mile Southwest Extension will provide a loop through the southwest part of Oklahoma City, beginning where the John Kilpatrick Turnpike now ends at Interstate 40 in west Oklahoma City and linking up with State Highway 152, also known as Airport Road, in south Oklahoma City.

A ribbon-cutting ceremony is scheduled for 10 a.m. Thursday on a section of the new turnpike just east of Morgan Road.

Initially just the westbound/northbound lanes will open, but lanes going the opposite direction are expected to open in a couple of weeks

It looked close to completion when I was in OKC a couple weeks ago for the holiday, so not surprised that it's opening soon. Pictures here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/albums/72157712375202371 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/albums/72157712375202371)

I'm a little surprised the Kilpatrick Turnpike extension opened this quickly. As short as the extension seems, it's also a little surprising the length is 7.5 miles. But then all those crazy curves do add to the distance.

The new road may be worth checking out once or twice, but I doubt if it's something I would use on a regular basis coming up to the OKC area from Lawton. One of my friends lives up in Edmond. At first I took I-44 up to the Broadway Extension freeway and then took that into Edmond. The recent extension of the Lake Hefner Parkway created a new, slightly faster alternative.

I would consider using the new Kilpatrick extension for trips between Lawton and Edmond if the Kilpatrick and H.E. Bailey Norman Spur connected as a thru route with no stop lights or intersections (not to mention speed traps).

Planners goofed up a little over 20 years ago, letting developers effectively block the path of any direct Southern extension of the Kilpatrick down to I-44 in Bridge Creek. The path the new Kilpatrick extension has to take to get around the Mustang Creek housing development is pretty freaking wacky.

OK-4 has some potential to upgrade into a 4-lane freeway from I-44 in Bridge Creek up to the Canadian River. The ROW is reserved for the most part until a short distance before the intersection with OK-37. OK-4 is a divided 4-lane road from the Canadian River going into the South side of Mustang. That could be upgraded into a freeway segment as well. But the question is how do you span the gaps, particularly the one in Mustang itself? Mustang is growing too, so any available land is getting swallowed up by more McMansion developments.

They need to buy properties needed for land so SH-4 can tie into the new extension and/or SH-152. Then a loop can easily be finished to I-44 and I-35.

I can't help but wonder if certain kinds of people from Pennsylvania quietly invaded Oklahoma over the past 20 years. Because that Southern would-have-been partial loop from I-40 down to Norman is disrupted by multiple Breezewood-style disruptions that makes me only want to avoid the corridor 100% of the time. The bottleneck in front of Riverwind Casino is a Breezewood. The situation along Sara Road in Mustang is another Breezewood. It completely sucks. And that basically comes from the same old usual Okie-dokie-doofus tradition of not planning any farther ahead than a 4 year election cycle. Oklahoma still doesn't even have something like a 4-level directional stack interchange anywhere in the Sooner state. So how can we expect the people who "lead" this state to have enough foresight to have any sense of long term corridor planning anywhere at any time?

Guess where I went today!

(https://i.imgur.com/GrZBnjG.jpg)
Immediate toll plaza just north of the exit from SH-152

(https://i.imgur.com/FC0mPQZ.jpg)
OTA standard toll plaza signage. As far as I can tell, this is the only Type A (tapered shaft) arrow on the entire new section–OTA used the same signage contractor that ODOT has been using lately, that uniformly uses Type D (straight-shaft) arrows where they don't belong. I want to say this bridge is County Line Road, but it's hard to tell because SOMEONE was too cheap to put up a "Canadian County" sign if so!

(https://i.imgur.com/EkziGWh.jpg)
Morgan Road exit. This is supposed to be a Type A arrow like the one on the Cash Vehicles Pay Toll sign.

(https://i.imgur.com/pLzkVpS.jpg)
Only the northbound lanes are open, allowing this guy to go north in the southbound lane.

(https://i.imgur.com/8a5O4rp.jpg)
Approaching SW 29th Street. There's a surprise waiting for you at the exit!

(https://i.imgur.com/tw3NEvP.jpg)
I have no idea where they got this mileage from. Mile markers are posted at .0 and .5, like on I-35, but with these custom-designed ones, not the enhanced mile markers ODOT has been using on I-35.

(https://i.imgur.com/x6IRcZg.jpg)
SW 29th Street/Sara Road exit. Note that Sara Road is not signed on the advance signage, but here it is anyway–a MUTCD violation.

(https://i.imgur.com/mQ0tbPK.jpg)
Most of the signs along the extension are on cantilevers, but the few signs on a full gantry use a Brown truss design for some reason, rather than Oklahoma's usual Pratt truss (or ODOT's new monotube design). Also note the weird Series EM shields, a regular feature from this signage contractor. The alignment of "WEST" on the left panel is correct, because this ramp leads to a c/d road where you can exit to both directions of SH-4.

The speed limit is signed at 70 MPH, but the signs looked temporary, so I'm not sure if they're planning to kick it up to 75 after the road is fully open.

Is the I-244/I-444 interchange at the northeast corner of the IDL considered a stack?

Quote from: bugo on January 10, 2020, 02:56:41 AMIs the I-244/I-444 interchange at the northeast corner of the IDL considered a stack?

Only in the very loose sense that any interchange with more than two levels is a stack.  It is not a true Maltese cross stack because some of the movements are directional (involving left exits for left-turns) rather than semidirectional.

I try to keep a list of Maltese cross stacks worldwide, and my criteria include offside turning movements (left-turning in right-driving countries, right-turning in left-driving countries) served by semidirectional direct connectors such that opposite-facing movements do not cross in plan.  There are no Maltese cross stacks in Oklahoma.  Nor are there any in Kansas (though three have been proposed).  Texas has nearly as many Maltese cross stacks as the rest of the US combined.

I believe the I-235/I-44 interchange will be the first four stack in the state. I think 35/I-240 is planned as 4 stack as well. Also the master build out of US-75/I-44 interchange in Tulsa is supposed to be a 4 or 5 stack.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 10, 2020, 01:53:51 PMI believe the I-235/I-44 interchange will be the first four stack in the state.

It won't be a Maltese cross stack (per rendering (https://okcfox.com/news/local/odot-prepares-for-massive-construction-project-at-the-i-235i-44-interchange)) because some movements will continue to be served by loop ramps.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 10, 2020, 01:53:51 PMI think 35/I-240 is planned as 4 stack as well.

If Oklahoma DOT is sticking with the plan that comes up first in a casual Google search (result (https://www.ok.gov/odot/What%27s_New/I35_and_I240_Crossroads_project.html)), then it will be a turban/cloverleaf hybrid.

What strikes me is the extent to which various states nickel-and-dime themselves out of building true Maltese cross stacks.  In Wichita, for example, it was one of the options for the I-235/US 54 interchange, but KDOT decided to have a pair of less heavily used direct connectors cross in plan (thus creating a stack/turban hybrid) with their design speeds reduced from 45 MPH to 35 MPH.  KDOT also spent over $200 million on the Johnson County Gateway, yet left two loop ramps (making it a cloverstack) instead of upgrading them to direct connectors (which was proposed at one point).

^^ Interesting. I haven't heard that term before "maltese cross." OkDOT is branding I-235/I-44 as the states first four level. I agree with you however, I am not a fan of labeling directional/cloverleaf interchanges as any types of true stacks even though there are different levels.

Here is the 44/75 interchange proposal in Tulsa although this one has no identified funding: https://www.odot.org/meetings/a2017/171102/View1.pdf

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 10, 2020, 03:12:35 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 10, 2020, 01:53:51 PM
I believe the I-235/I-44 interchange will be the first four stack in the state.

It won't be a Maltese cross stack (per rendering (https://okcfox.com/news/local/odot-prepares-for-massive-construction-project-at-the-i-235i-44-interchange)) because some movements will continue to be served by loop ramps.

That looks like a three-level stack to me, too, not a four–although I guess it is sort of four-ish.

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 10, 2020, 12:35:21 PM

Quote from: bugo on January 10, 2020, 02:56:41 AMIs the I-244/I-444 interchange at the northeast corner of the IDL considered a stack?

Only in the very loose sense that any interchange with more than two levels is a stack.  It is not a true Maltese cross stack because some of the movements are directional (involving left exits for left-turns) rather than semidirectional.

I try to keep a list of Maltese cross stacks worldwide, and my criteria include offside turning movements (left-turning in right-driving countries, right-turning in left-driving countries) served by semidirectional direct connectors such that opposite-facing movements do not cross in plan.  There are no Maltese cross stacks in Oklahoma.  Nor are there any in Kansas (though three have been proposed).  Texas has nearly as many Maltese cross stacks as the rest of the US combined.

If the name for a complete stack Interchange is Maltese Cross Stack, then what is this thing?

https://i.imgur.com/XBAJ74O.jpg

Do my eyes deceive me, or is that functionally equivalent to a Maltese cross, but only three levels?

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 10, 2020, 03:21:34 PM^^ Interesting. I haven't heard that term before "maltese cross."

I believe this has a German origin: 'Malteserkreuz' A 4-way Autobahn interchange is also called a 'kreuz' (cross) in German.

Quote from: In_Correct on January 10, 2020, 03:53:50 PMIf the name for a complete stack Interchange is Maltese Cross Stack, then what is this thing?

https://i.imgur.com/XBAJ74O.jpg

I count it as a Maltese cross stack, albeit not yet complete as shown (one of the direct connectors has what appear to be Cor-Ten girders, no deck yet).  I'm guessing this is I-10/Loop 375 (Americas interchange) southeast of El Paso.

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2020, 04:12:04 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 10, 2020, 03:21:34 PM^^ Interesting. I haven't heard that term before "maltese cross."

I believe this has a German origin: 'Malteserkreuz' A 4-way Autobahn interchange is also called a 'kreuz' (cross) in German.

Yes, I think this is correct, and originates from the ramps (at least in early layouts like the Four Level in Los Angeles) resembling a Maltese cross.  I am not aware the term was used in English at the time the first few stacks were being built.  The Four Level was called just that, and not spoken of by how the ramps lay out in plan.

Ironically, Germany's one stack that is classifiable as a Maltese cross (the A45/A480 Wetzlarer Kreuz (https://www.google.com/maps/@50.596479,8.4842303,15.75z) in Hesse) is very irregular, and one of the arms is an unfinished stub, a bit like I-70/I-695 in Baltimore.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 10, 2020, 01:53:51 PM
I believe the I-235/I-44 interchange will be the first four stack in the state. I think 35/I-240 is planned as 4 stack as well. Also the master build out of US-75/I-44 interchange in Tulsa is supposed to be a 4 or 5 stack.

The OK74/Kilpatrick is a 4-level even if there is  only one ramp (WB to SB) on the 4th level.

Quote from: J N WinklerWhat strikes me is the extent to which various states nickel-and-dime themselves out of building true Maltese cross stacks.  In Wichita, for example, it was one of the options for the I-235/US 54 interchange, but KDOT decided to have a pair of less heavily used direct connectors cross in plan (thus creating a stack/turban hybrid) with their design speeds reduced from 45 MPH to 35 MPH.  KDOT also spent over $200 million on the Johnson County Gateway, yet left two loop ramps (making it a cloverstack) instead of upgrading them to direct connectors (which was proposed at one point).

For my own criteria, a modern freeway to freeway directional stack interchange is one which has zero cloverleaf ramps. NONE. And the four ramps that cross inside the interchange have to meet in the middle to create that Maltese Cross appearance (and the four levels). Raising the criteria higher, there should be no left exits to off ramps. That's what ruins the I-44/I-40 interchange in OKC.

The I-44/I-235/Broadway Extension interchange in Oklahoma City, an interchange project that has been going on in fits and starts for over a decade (and still not finished) will have TWO cloverleaf loop ramps. Kind of like a pair of Mickey Mouse ears worked into the design.

The I-35/I-240 "Crossroads Renewal" interchange in OKC will have cloverleaf loops at the NW and SE corners of the interchange. This project will be an improvement over the old, slow cloverleaf interchange. But it's not going to be as efficient as a true directional stack.

The I-44/US-75 interchange proposed in Tulsa is a hodge-podge concept. One of the movements is served by a cloverleaf loop, which is an immediate disqualification in my book for stack interchanges. Two of the flyovers (SB US-75 to EB I-44 and NB US-75 to WB I-44) meet in the center of the interchange in the fashion of a Maltese Cross stack. But then the WB I-44 to SB US-75 movement is a really long ramp curving well outside the center of the interchange. It's more like one of the movements from a pinwheel interchange, kind of the I-85/I-485 interchange on the NE side of Charlotte.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 11, 2020, 12:47:12 AMFor my own criteria, a modern freeway to freeway directional stack interchange is one which has zero cloverleaf ramps. NONE. And the four ramps that cross inside the interchange have to meet in the middle to create that Maltese Cross appearance (and the four levels). Raising the criteria higher, there should be no left exits to off ramps. That's what ruins the I-44/I-40 interchange in OKC.

Though they look a lot less like Maltese crosses than older interchanges like the original Four Level and I-75/US 35 in Dayton, Ohio, I count modern stacks that have opposite-facing direct connectors separated quite widely from each other, like the US 60/Loop 202 SuperRedTan interchange in Mesa, Arizona.  My observation has been that modern design tends to favor this wider separation because it allows higher horizontal curve radii for the direct connector ramps, which in turn increases the design speed.  I believe that if you spread the required movements far enough out in plan, it is conceptually possible to build a "four-level" stack that has no more than two levels at any given point.

I do agree that left exits and entrances are disqualifying, as are loop ramps unless they are additional to connectors that fill out the basic stack layout.  (I-10/Loop 375 Americas interchange, mentioned above, is an example of a stack interchange of freeway mainlines that is superimposed on a cloverleaf interchange for the frontage roads.)

The US-60/Loop 202 interchange in the Phoenix area still fits my definition of a true directional stack interchange. The opposing flyover ramps are spread a little farther apart, but the ramps still create that symmetrical, 4-level appearance. The I-10/Loop 375 interchange on the SW side of El Paso is pretty unique in that the two freeways intersect in a true directional stack interchange yet do so above frontage roads that meet in their own separate cloverleaf interchange.

I agree if a freeway to freeway interchange is built on a large enough footprint it's possible to build a directional interchange with no more than 2 levels and no cloverleaf loops. The design would require the two carriageways of both intersecting freeways to be spread well apart so the intersecting "flyover" movements wouldn't create 3 level crossings.

4 level directional stack interchanges can easily fit within the same footprint as a cloverleaf interchange or even go a bit tighter. The stack interchange in San Antonio at Loop 1604 and US-281 fits pretty snug into its surroundings, but has ramp with 45mph speeds as a consequence.

There is one stack interchange where I'm willing to forgive the existence of loop ramps: the I-95/I-395/Capitol Beltway interchange in Springfield, VA. The primary main lane movements of that interchange are all on directional ramps, even though the ramps don't have a symmetrical Maltese Cross appearance. The mash-up of Loops and Y junctions on the NW side of the interchange are all for HOV lane access -some of which are reversible due to the HOV arrangement on I-395 and I-95 South of the interchange. Overall it's a very impressive interchange. I-95 South of there thru Springfield and Franconia is pretty amazing.

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 11, 2020, 12:18:22 PM
I believe that if you spread the required movements far enough out in plan, it is conceptually possible to build a "four-level" stack that has no more than two levels at any given point.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 11, 2020, 02:43:43 PM
I agree if a freeway to freeway interchange is built on a large enough footprint it's possible to build a directional interchange with no more than 2 levels and no cloverleaf loops. The design would require the two carriageways of both intersecting freeways to be spread well apart so the intersecting "flyover" movements wouldn't create 3 level crossings.

This is why I don't consider the planned 235/44 interchange to be a four-level stack.  At no point are there four roads on top of each other, so it's not a four-level anything.

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 10, 2020, 12:35:21 PM

Quote from: bugo on January 10, 2020, 02:56:41 AMIs the I-244/I-444 interchange at the northeast corner of the IDL considered a stack?

Only in the very loose sense that any interchange with more than two levels is a stack.  It is not a true Maltese cross stack because some of the movements are directional (involving left exits for left-turns) rather than semidirectional.

All the exits from I-244 to I-444 and vice versa are left exits except for one: NB I-444 to EB I-44. The other seven movements feature left exits. I-244 was designed by dimwitted monkeys on LSD.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 10, 2020, 03:21:34 PM
Here is the 44/75 interchange proposal in Tulsa although this one has no identified funding: https://www.odot.org/meetings/a2017/171102/View1.pdf

That interchange is badly needed. I drive through this interchange every day, from WB I-44 to SB US 75 and from NB US 75 to EB I-44, and it is not safe. The loop ramps suck because they are loop ramps, and the merge from the SB US 75 ramp into the EB I-44 collector lane is terrifying because it is hard to tell at night if a car traveling EB is in the collector lane or in the mainline I-44 lanes because there is no barrier between the I-44 mainline lanes and the collector road, only a curb. There also isn't much of a merge area. Then there is the questionable ramp from the EB I-44 collector road to Skelly Drive. This ramp is signed for Elwood Avenue. This interchange is scary and needed to be rebuilt 30 years ago.

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 10, 2020, 05:38:36 PM
Ironically, Germany's one stack that is classifiable as a Maltese cross (the A45/A480 Wetzlarer Kreuz (https://www.google.com/maps/@50.596479,8.4842303,15.75z) in Hesse) is very irregular, and one of the arms is an unfinished stub, a bit like I-70/I-695 in Baltimore.

The ramp from eastbound to southbound has a weird curve in it. It looks like it might be slightly dangerous.

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 10, 2020, 05:38:36 PM
Ironically, Germany's one stack that is classifiable as a Maltese cross (the A45/A480 Wetzlarer Kreuz (https://www.google.com/maps/@50.596479,8.4842303,15.75z) in Hesse) is very irregular, and one of the arms is an unfinished stub, a bit like I-70/I-695 in Baltimore.

The WB-SB has a weird curve in it where it jukes to the left to avoid the EB-NB ramp. It looks like it might be slightly dangerous. Is the accident rate here any higher than the other seven ramps?

Quote from: bugo on January 17, 2020, 08:43:33 AM
designed by dimwitted monkeys on LSD.

That's in Chicago.

Quote from: bugo on January 17, 2020, 08:43:33 AM

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 10, 2020, 12:35:21 PM

Quote from: bugo on January 10, 2020, 02:56:41 AMIs the I-244/I-444 interchange at the northeast corner of the IDL considered a stack?

Only in the very loose sense that any interchange with more than two levels is a stack.  It is not a true Maltese cross stack because some of the movements are directional (involving left exits for left-turns) rather than semidirectional.

All the exits from I-244 to I-444 and vice versa are left exits except for one: NB I-444 to EB I-44. The other seven movements feature left exits. I-244 was designed by dimwitted monkeys on LSD.

Won't argue that but the railroad running through the middle of the interchange greatly complicates things.

This is a small pet peeve of mine but I really wish governments in Oklahoma would do a better job of being more transparent and keeping their public information up to date. There's still several Driving Forward projects going on and will probably be going on for another year. They haven't updated a single thing on their website since 2018: https://www.drivingforwardok.com/

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 11, 2022, 05:29:40 AM
This is a small pet peeve of mine but I really wish governments in Oklahoma would do a better job

You could have just stopped there. :-D

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 11, 2022, 05:41:27 AM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 11, 2022, 05:29:40 AM
This is a small pet peeve of mine but I really wish governments in Oklahoma would do a better job

You could have just stopped there. :-D

I use the quote from Dumb and Dumber to justify my enthusiasm for progress in Oklahoma one day.

Surplus land from these projects to be auctioned off:

https://tulsaworld.com/business/local/surplus-land-to-be-auctioned-next-month-from-oklahoma-turnpike-authority-a-grand-opportunity/article_02f88a60-dabf-11ec-a4de-4be088b903e1.html