Print

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

[Bobby5280]

How soon might construction begin on these new roads, assuming the locals and the NIMBYS don't force the projects to be canceled?

There's no telling. $500 million isn't going to buy a whole lot; it's only 10% of the funding for the proposed 15 year plan.

I would hope OTA would at least get to work immediately on right of way acquisition with the East to West Connector. There isn't a lot of existing development along Indian Hills Road at least for the time being (loud f***king hint). That $500 million pool should be more than enough to buy up the land and properties needed and leave quite a bit of funding left for other projects.

If OTA can at least get the ROW for the East to West Connector secured then they'll be able to proceed building out the turnpike as funding progress allows. I expect they'll build the turnpike in phases, starting with the frontage roads. Then the main lanes will follow. The 5-level stack interchange at I-35 could be the final project. I just hope it doesn't take OTA a friggin' decade to build it. It does seem like the East to West Connector and I-35 will initially operate in a "volleyball" connection with directional ramps getting added in phases. I'll be surprised if OTA builds the whole stack in one shot.

For all the griping the anti-turnpike crowd is doing; I'll bet if the East to West Connector is built-out at planned, with the 5-level stack interchange at I-35, the area around that connection with I-35 will BOOM commercially speaking. The parcels along the new turnpike will be magnets for new businesses, maybe even some high rises. The anti-turnpike folks will have to eat some crow then.
 
OTA has a lot of construction work to do with existing toll plazas and antiquated turnpike exits. Last weekend I drove up to Joplin for a sign industry convention. The H.E. Bailey Turnpike is technically all cash-less now. But a couple of the toll plazas are still very serious bottlenecks.

The Newcastle toll plaza has single PikePass lanes that go out-board from the existing cash toll plaza in the middle. Now all of the traffic is getting funneled through those single PikePass lanes. Temporary LED signs flash a message, "keep moving; we will bill you." Concrete barriers are blocking off the toll booth that was built in the late 1990's. Now they need to tear down that toll booth and re-do the main lanes through there (and then presumably remove those outboard PikePass lanes).

The Walters Toll Plaza is perhaps an even bigger mess. Basically the entire exit needs to be re-built.

Driving through either the Newcastle or Walters toll plazas is like driving through a construction zone. That's not going to be an acceptable arrangement for a long amount of time.

[Scott5114]

Here was the timeline for the Creek Turnpike, which had similar levels of opposition (though it was much shorter than what is proposed):

Feb. 1989 - bonds sold for funding
June 1989 - OTA begins filing eminent domain suits
Aug. 1989 - lawsuit filed to stop the turnpike on environmental grounds
Nov. 1989 - OTA files for USACE permits
Feb. 1990 - drainage work in progress
Mar. 1990 - construction on bridges begins
May 1990 - lawsuit dismissed
Nov. 1990 - USACE permits issued
Dec. 1990 - last permits secured, all contractors given notice to proceed
Mar. 1992 - first section opens

[rte66man]

How soon might construction begin on these new roads, assuming the locals and the NIMBYS don't force the projects to be canceled?

There's no telling. $500 million isn't going to buy a whole lot; it's only 10% of the funding for the proposed 15 year plan.

I would hope OTA would at least get to work immediately on right of way acquisition with the East to West Connector.
<snip>

Can't be done. The enabling language specifically states no funds can be spent on those until all lawsuits are either dismissed or settled. The $500 million is for the other parts.

[Scott5114]

How soon might construction begin on these new roads, assuming the locals and the NIMBYS don't force the projects to be canceled?

There's no telling. $500 million isn't going to buy a whole lot; it's only 10% of the funding for the proposed 15 year plan.

I would hope OTA would at least get to work immediately on right of way acquisition with the East to West Connector.
<snip>

Can't be done. The enabling language specifically states no funds can be spent on those until all lawsuits are either dismissed or settled. The $500 million is for the other parts.

So does that mean funding can be indefinitely delayed by starting frivolous lawsuits? Uh-oh...

[sturmde]

Even before the ACCESS Oklahoma announcement I thought the notion of naming the Kickapoo Turnpike as I-240 was a silly idea. I don't mind I-240 being labeled across Airport Road and the Kilpatrick Turnpike. That at least makes some logical sense. Pushing the designation way out east to the Kickapoo Turnpike is just too much.

The ACCESS Oklahoma plan changes the context of this situation. The Kickapoo Turnpike will ultimately be extended down to I-35 near Purcell. The best thing would be for that turnpike to have only one route number, be it a state highway number or an Interstate number. I think it would be stupid to have the Northern section called I-240 and some other number applied going South of I-40.

It may seem illogical, but the stated DOT logic is that anyone needing to bypass OKC from *any* direction will have a continunously signed I-240 looping completely around.  I-275 around Cincinnati isn't perfectly shaped either, but does the same job -- unless there's an accident or construction around the Spence, it's always faster to go *through* Cincy on 75 or 71...  As a far outer bypass, it's not any less logical that Houston's Loop 8, nor the someday to be full circle TX 99....
.
As for the Kickapoo, south of I-40 having it be OK 340 makes sense enough.  The E-W can be OK 335, and the spur from now OK-152 to I-44 past the airport can't be 344, so maybe indeed it would make most sense as OK 352 - although this will eventually be the E terminus of 152!  (Since 312, 344, 351, 364, and 375 started this crazy pattern...)

[Cerlin]

I-275 around Cincinnati isn't perfectly shaped either, but does the same job

See but the issue is not necessarily that the proposed I-240 loop isn’t the quickest way around OKC or that it’s large. And that’s where I have an issue with the I-275 comparison. 275 is its own road, except for a brief concurrency with 74, and is one complete, logical thoroughfare. The I-240 loop, however, would be filled with several long concurrencies, including 2 separate ones with I-44 and a concurrency with I-40 itself, in addition to lots of quick changes due to needing to exit itself. It’d be a hodgepodge of existing roadways and given they likely wouldn’t be building dedicated 2 lane highways for every interchange, it’s much less intuitive than an oddly shaped Cincy loop.

[Bobby5280]

Here's a hint the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and/or ODOT needs to add a second set of lanes to OK-4 going North from I-44 into Bridge Creek: A fatal head-on collision this weekend involving 3 vehicles at high speed. A vehicle traveling Northbound veered left of center, hitting two vehicles going Southbound in the opposing lane. 2 people were declared dead at the scene. A woman driving the third vehicle was treated at a hospital for arm injuries and released.
https://www.news9.com/story/63001fff84275b070ac0dd0b/1-dead-lanes-closed-fiery-crash-in-grady-county

The accident happened at the intersection of OK-4 (S Mustang Rd) and Rock Creek Rd. Technically the turnpike extension begins immediately South of this intersection even though there is around a dozen at grade intersections and driveways between that point and I-44.

IIRC, OTA does have a project proposed to add a new limited access exit on that stretch of OK-4 at Fox Lane. But I can't recall if they're going to improve some of the road into 4-lane configuration. They do have enough ROW reserved to 4-lane OK-4 into the South side of Bridge Creek.

As OK-4 enters Bridge Creek the road expands from 2 lanes into a 5-lane street with a center turn lane. North of Bridge Creek OK-4 takes on a 4-lane divided configuration. I think this corridor has enough importance that none of it between I-44 and Mustang should be in a 2-lane configuration. The turnpike should be extended as far as possible into Bridge Creek, with frontage roads included on the final approach. Ideally, the turnpike should be extended through Bridge Creek and up into Mustang.

[rte66man]

Here's a hint the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and/or ODOT needs to add a second set of lanes to OK-4 going North from I-44 into Bridge Creek: A fatal head-on collision this weekend involving 3 vehicles at high speed. A vehicle traveling Northbound veered left of center, hitting two vehicles going Southbound in the opposing lane. 2 people were declared dead at the scene. A woman driving the third vehicle was treated at a hospital for arm injuries and released.
https://www.news9.com/story/63001fff84275b070ac0dd0b/1-dead-lanes-closed-fiery-crash-in-grady-county

The accident happened at the intersection of OK-4 (S Mustang Rd) and Rock Creek Rd. Technically the turnpike extension begins immediately South of this intersection even though there is around a dozen at grade intersections and driveways between that point and I-44.

Heh.
"around a dozen" = 1.5 (according to Google maps).

There is a home just north of the Sooner Road overpass that has created their own access (I gave it a .5)
The main one is to the west about a 1/2 mile south of Fox Lane that gives access to that housing addition.

I didn't count the ODOT maintenance shed.

[sturmde]

I-275 around Cincinnati isn't perfectly shaped either, but does the same job

See but the issue is not necessarily that the proposed I-240 loop isn’t the quickest way around OKC or that it’s large. And that’s where I have an issue with the I-275 comparison. 275 is its own road, except for a brief concurrency with 74, and is one complete, logical thoroughfare. The I-240 loop, however, would be filled with several long concurrencies, including 2 separate ones with I-44 and a concurrency with I-40 itself, in addition to lots of quick changes due to needing to exit itself. It’d be a hodgepodge of existing roadways and given they likely wouldn’t be building dedicated 2 lane highways for every interchange, it’s much less intuitive than an oddly shaped Cincy loop.

Looks at you funnily in I-87/287 and I-95/495.

[The Ghostbuster]

If Interstate 240 is extended into a 91-mile beltway around, it would not be the first duplex between Interstate 40 and one of its 3dis. Historically, Interstates 40 and 240 were briefly co-designated together in Memphis after 40 through Overton Park was canceled (the duplex was removed a year after it was designated in 1982). Also, Interstate 40 and Interstate 440 were co-designated in Raleigh from when 440 was designated in 1991 until 2008.

[Bobby5280]

Heh.
"around a dozen" = 1.5 (according to Google maps).

On OK-4 South of Rock Creek Road there are at grade intersections with CR 1210, Fox Lane and CR 1226. In addition there are 13 driveways entering OK-4 at grade. That includes the ODOT maintenance shed among other things.

[rte66man]

Heh.
"around a dozen" = 1.5 (according to Google maps).

On OK-4 South of Rock Creek Road there are at grade intersections with CR 1210, Fox Lane and CR 1226. In addition there are 13 driveways entering OK-4 at grade. That includes the ODOT maintenance shed among other things.

I wasn't aware that Tuttle also has a Rock Creek Road that has zero in common with the Rock Creek Road in Cleveland County. Very tricksy!

[Scott5114]

Heh.
"around a dozen" = 1.5 (according to Google maps).

On OK-4 South of Rock Creek Road there are at grade intersections with CR 1210, Fox Lane and CR 1226. In addition there are 13 driveways entering OK-4 at grade. That includes the ODOT maintenance shed among other things.

I wasn't aware that Tuttle also has a Rock Creek Road that has zero in common with the Rock Creek Road in Cleveland County. Very tricksy!

I always assumed it was at least on the same line of latitude as the Cleveland County Rock Creek Road...nope, it's two miles north of there, on the same line as Franklin Road. (Fox Lane is what lines up with Rock Creek Road in Norman.)

Not that it really matters, since they don't connect thanks to the river.

[Plutonic Panda]

Hopefully the court rules in favor of the OTA: https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/politics/government/2022/09/14/turnpike-opponents-present-argument-to-oklahoma-supreme-court-jered-davidson/69492699007/

[Bobby5280]

Yeah, I hope the court rules in favor of the OTA as well. I hope the court does not remove any of the proposed routes either.

The anti turnpikes crowd has routinely been using disinformation tactics to promote their arguments. They've wildly exaggerated how many properties would have to be acquired by either the Tri City Connector or Kickapoo Turnpike Extension to Purcell. They're flatly ignoring any of the benefits these new turnpikes would provide. A bunch of the crowd is just there to bitch about tolls, thinking their tax dollars are paying for the construction and upkeep of those highways. They barf out their arguments and expose how ill-informed they are at the same time.

[Plutonic Panda]

From Journal Record:

OKLAHOMA CITY – Today’s Oklahoma Turnpike Authority has a very different idea about the scope of its power than the OTA of 20 or 30 years ago, according to arguments made before the Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday.

The OTA asked the court to approve a bond issue that would allow the agency to move forward with a controversial $5 billion turnpike extension, even as the proposal is currently pending in district court. A court referee heard arguments in the request on Tuesday.

Representing the OTA, Jered Davidson said the agency always has been granted the leeway to identify when and where new toll roads are needed. Getting the court’s approval would provide certainty for all involved as the agency moves to create new roadways intended to relieve congestion along the Interstate 35 corridor.

Opponents to the plan pointed to current statutes as well as previously attempted legislation that they say shows the agency requires legislative approval for new projects of this scope.

“OTA has asked for permission to build the south extension before,” said attorney Elaine Dowling on Tuesday afternoon. “They were denied it. This year, they didn’t bother asking.”

A project that closely mirrors the current proposal, to extend the turnpike system south to Purcell, was requested and rejected during the 1999 legislative session, Dowling said.

The Oklahoma Legislature had years ago stipulated that four turnpike expansion projects be funded with one bond issue, if they were to be completed at all, attorney Rob Norman told the court. The OTA opted against the plan, instead requesting the ability to issue bonds at a later date to continue the project. That request was denied, and the project was abandoned for decades.

Davidson contended that the bond issue to fund the project currently proposed is a continuation of the original bond issue from decades ago, and thus already is approved under the decades’ old authorization.

Former state Rep. Mike Reynolds, who served in the Legislature from 2002 to 2014, said he did everything he could to kill a similar turnpike extension proposal.

“I was told it was dead,” Reynolds told the Oklahoma Supreme Court referee overseeing Tuesday’s hearing. “Today I find out it’s not as dead as I thought. It’s quite interesting to me that somehow the authority has determined they have legislative authority. … To try to piggyback these turnpikes on previous legislation I think is absolutely disgusting.”

The city of Norman has joined the list of parties opposing the OTA’s request, along with a group of affected landowners and neighbors that formed the group Pike Off OTA.

The stakes couldn’t be higher, opponents of the OTA’s Access Oklahoma plan told the court on Tuesday. A victory for the OTA would give the government agency the confidence to continue building toll roads anytime, taking anyone’s private land for the purpose, and turning over ownership of the state’s roads to foreign investors, said opponents to the plan.

Norman resident Amy Cerrato said neighbors have been “terrorized” by land surveyors as they move ahead with plans to acquire their land to make way for the turnpike.

The Oklahoma Council on Bond Oversight gave only conditional approval for the bond issue, contingent on the legal challenges against the turnpike extension being resolved in favor of the OTA. The OTA responded by reallocating other funding sources in order to continue moving forward with the project.

“Less than one year from public announcement to eminent domain,” Cerrato said. “Would that accelerated timeline be to avoid the next legislative session that could potentially pass bills to limit the OTA’s authority and put citizen protections in place?”

- https://journalrecord.com/2022/09/13/oklahoma-turnpike-authority-makes-its-case-to-state-supreme-court/?utm_term=Oklahoma%20Turnpike%20Authority%20makes%20its%20case%20to%20state%20Supreme%20Court&utm_campaign=Oklahoma%20Turnpike%20Authority%20makes%20its%20case%20to%20state%20Supreme%20Court&utm_content=Editorial&utm_source=Act-On+Software&utm_medium=OKC&Email=plutonicpanda@gmail.com

[rte66man]

From Journal Record:

Norman resident Amy Cerrato said neighbors have been “terrorized” by land surveyors as they move ahead with plans to acquire their land to make way for the turnpike.

Uhhh "terrorized"? That woman has no idea what real terrorizing is. I would really love to see what she considers terrorizing.

[Rothman]

From Journal Record:

Norman resident Amy Cerrato said neighbors have been “terrorized” by land surveyors as they move ahead with plans to acquire their land to make way for the turnpike.

Uhhh "terrorized"? That woman has no idea what real terrorizing is. I would really love to see what she considers terrorizing.

Surveyors around here need to at least make an effort to repair property damage if they have to dig for buried markers and the like.

Had neighbors hire surveyors that had to do that on my property.  I'd have to go with "probably not terrorism."

[kphoger]

From Journal Record:

“terrorized” by land surveyors

Uhhh "terrorized"? That woman has no idea what real terrorizing is. I would really love to see what she considers terrorizing.

[jdingus]

Drove the Kickapoo home yesterday. Why does it have 130-149 Mile Markers? Is it based of I-35 Mile Markers or I-44? Just curious. Since they are extending it to I-35 Near Purcell do you think they scrapped the 240 designation and going to call it X35 Designation? Still no signs of the 240 loop.


Another note also why don't they extend 235 to the JKT?

[Scott5114]

Drove the Kickapoo home yesterday. Why does it have 130-149 Mile Markers? Is it based of I-35 Mile Markers or I-44? Just curious.

The I-44/Kickapoo interchange is exit 149 on both roads.

Since they are extending it to I-35 Near Purcell do you think they scrapped the 240 designation and going to call it X35 Designation? Still no signs of the 240 loop.

When the Transportation Commission was voting on the I-240 designation, Tim Gatz was pretty damn proud of its "loop format". I can't see them doing anything to change that.

My guess is the southern extension of the Kickapoo will either just be called the Kickapoo, or be numbered as a SH-3xx (probably 309).

Another note also why don't they extend 235 to the JKT?

Someone at ODOT would have to do paperwork.

[Bobby5280]

Once I-240 is signed over the Kilpatrick Turnpike it should be possible to extend the I-235 designation North to the JKT/Broadway Extension interchange.

[The Ghostbuster]

Is the US 77 freeway north of Interstate 44 up to Interstate Standards? In any event, I doubt Interstate 235 will ever be extended north of Interstate 44.

[Scott5114]

Is the US 77 freeway north of Interstate 44 up to Interstate Standards? In any event, I doubt Interstate 235 will ever be extended north of Interstate 44.

I see no obvious reason it wouldn't be. I think it's merely that the thought of extending I-235 has never occurred to ODOT.

If someone wants to ask them why it hasn't been extended, let us know what they say. They don't answer my emails.

[Bobby5280]

Is the US 77 freeway north of Interstate 44 up to Interstate Standards? In any event, I doubt Interstate 235 will ever be extended north of Interstate 44.

I would be shocked if Broadway Extension between I-44 and the JKT was not up to current Interstate standards. That whole segment of freeway was pretty much re-built in the early to mid 2000's. Improvements to Broadway Extension going into the I-44 interchange dragged into the late 2000's. Then it took at least another ten or so years to get the friggin' I-44/I-235 interchange finished.

Back when Broadway Extension was being re-built I wondered if ODOT would try to extend the I-235 designation along it. With I-235 being an even-numbered route, but not a loop highway, both ends are supposed to connect to other Interstate highways. It currently does that with I-35 and I-44. If the JKT ends up carrying the I-240 designation then that would seem to green-light the possibility of I-235 being named over Broadway Extension.