Print

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

[bwana39]

  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29408.msg2619225#msg2619225
seeking interstate upgrade of US 412
« on: May 26, 2021, 08:24:16 PM »
since there's plans for a I-42 already in the books, what are the options for an east west route between Springdale and Tulsa between I-40 and 44?  Much of it is already turnpike in OK

It could be an IH-X44, IH-X49, or as a stretch an IH-X57.  As a real stretch, it could be a continuation of IH-555.  The X-49 and X-44 are viable. The others fall into the built all the way across Arkansas realm.
There is not a good 2DI for this one.  The sacrosanct IH-50 or a IH-3X. Either of those is outside their grid. If I-50 progressed past Tulsa, it could be grid compliant.

Even if  it were brought to IH standards, it would probably  remain the misplaced IH-412.

I-x57 or I-555 are simply never going to happen. I doubt there will be anything resembling an interstate highway built east of Springdale. I-x44 or I-x49 could work in theory, but for the whole corridor between I-35 and I-49, that's 190 miles. It would be the longest 3di in existence, taking I-476's place. Not saying it's not possible, but more likely given it's connecting two states, two interstate highways, and that length, it'll be an I-4x.

To be a tecnocrat. It would be two shorter segments. One in Arkansas and one in Oklahoma. I do however agree with you.

[Scott5114]

There is not a good 2DI for this one.  The sacrosanct IH-50 or a IH-3X. Either of those is outside their grid. If I-50 progressed past Tulsa, it could be grid compliant.

Well, since it is proposed to go past Tulsa, 46 and 48 are options within the grid.

Why does this keep getting posted?

This is the route being proposed:

[sprjus4]

There is not a good 2DI for this one.  The sacrosanct IH-50 or a IH-3X. Either of those is outside their grid. If I-50 progressed past Tulsa, it could be grid compliant.

Well, since it is proposed to go past Tulsa, 46 and 48 are options within the grid.

Why does this keep getting posted?

This is the route being proposed:

Apparently some believe it will not go past Tulsa even though that was obvious from the beginning.

[Scott5114]

I feel like, if anything, the part west of Tulsa will probably be the first to get signed as an Interstate, since it's already fully controlled-access (other than possibly one or two at-grades just west of Tulsa, if I remember right). Basically all that would need to be done is to add a median Jersey barrier, like what was done to bring I-44 up to code, and possibly address some clearance issues.

[Avalanchez71]

Looks like I-46 would be a good fit.  Do you think the tax payer would benefit from a pork project like this one?

[bwana39]

It could be interstate quality road but keeps it as US 412.

I didn't realize US 412 was in Michigan or Ohio.

Do OK and AR fall into the NC pattern of "Interstate-izing" everything? 

Oklahoma hasn't added a new interstate designation to a road since 1982, as far as I know. (I-235 was completed and signed after that, but it was in the Green Book so I'm not counting it.) Most new freeway corridors have carried state route numbers (SH-152, SH-74) or been unnumbered turnpikes.

So y'all should hush and let us have this one.

Another example of a proposed Interstate in Oklahoma was considered in 1991, when Section 1074 of ISTEA included a future Interstate corridor along US 69 north of the Texas-Oklahoma state line: "upon the request of the Oklahoma State highway agency, the Secretary shall designate the portion of United States Route 69 from the Oklahoma—Texas State line to Checotah in the State of Oklahoma as a part of the Interstate System." Since this upgrade hasn't happened in 30 years, I'm not sure there's haste in Oklahoma to add more Interstate highways.

SM-G975U

Now I will sound like a Ouija ball, but all signs point toward the US 69 corridor actually getting done. Again signs point to Texas listing US-75 to the I-69 junction or the state line as IH-45. Oklahoma will likely get it done to US-70 in short order after Texas gets theirs done.   

Again... ALL SIGNS POINT...  There has been lots of discussion on various Texas threads in the Mid-south part of the board.  Texas has historically been and is slow to change numbers just to change numbers.

[Scott5114]

Looks like I-46 would be a good fit.  Do you think the tax payer would benefit from a pork project like this one?

Duh?

[sprjus4]

I feel like, if anything, the part west of Tulsa will probably be the first to get signed as an Interstate, since it's already fully controlled-access (other than possibly one or two at-grades just west of Tulsa, if I remember right). Basically all that would need to be done is to add a median Jersey barrier, like what was done to bring I-44 up to code, and possibly address some clearance issues.

Appears to be one at-grade just before the Arkansas River, otherwise the whole segment between Tulsa and I-35 is freeway standards. That one at-grade is close to an interchange and could be linked to it via a frontage road to eliminate the immediate freeway access.

Looks like I-46 would be a good fit.  Do you think the tax payer would benefit from a project like this one?

Yes, particularly the bypasses through the congested towns such as Siloam Springs that you seem to think aren’t needed.

You probably would be the one to call the Springdale Bypass a “pork”  project, let alone I-49 itself. 

[sparker]

Looks like I-46 would be a good fit.  Do you think the tax payer would benefit from a pork project like this one?

Duh?

Uhh.......we're already a relatively low-tax country compared to much of Western Civ (WTF does anyone think the "negotiations" about the funding level of an infrastructure bill entails?)  This project is actually something of a bargain; west of Tulsa is basically cleaning up an at-grade or two; while the eastern portion is about 40% done as the Cherokee Turnpike, with AR at least making an attempt at an E-W corridor with AR 612.  And I definitely agree that at least this initial project terminate at I-49 right in the heart of ongoing regional development -- providing continuous free-flow connection to Tulsa, the nearest other metro (not that some posters consider free-flow to be a worthwhile goal!). 

I'd actually put my two taxable cents in for not pussyfooting around and using I-50 for the designation here.  Not just to use up that I-x0, but because at that time the Muskogee Turnpike could conceivably receive a 3di based on that designation: I-350, just about as close as one can get to the current AR 351 designation (not that anyone in OK outside ODOT and we roadgeeks likely gives a rat's ass about that turnpike number!) so as not to cause too many fits within ODOT!   

[Tom958]

A new bypass around Siloam Springs is the biggest, most difficult to build, missing link on this corridor. And a freeway bypass around Siloam Springs is 100% justified. I've driven the existing road a few times. The traffic gets pretty ridiculous. How to resolve the connection thru or around Dripping Springs to the Cherokee Turnpike is another hurdle, but not as bad is Siloam Springs.

I'm amazed that ArDOT has a full-blown plan, partly implemented, for a Springdale bypass for US 412, but not for one for Siloam Springs.

[sparker]

A new bypass around Siloam Springs is the biggest, most difficult to build, missing link on this corridor. And a freeway bypass around Siloam Springs is 100% justified. I've driven the existing road a few times. The traffic gets pretty ridiculous. How to resolve the connection thru or around Dripping Springs to the Cherokee Turnpike is another hurdle, but not as bad is Siloam Springs.

I'm amazed that ArDOT has a full-blown plan, partly implemented, for a Springdale bypass for US 412, but not for one for Siloam Springs.

Not surprising; Springdale is where the commercial and residential "action" is as the more or less midpoint of the NWA metro region; Siloam, while a historic resort, is still just a point on the E-W road to Tulsa.  But all shouldn't be considered as lost; the fact that the Bella Vista bypass actually got done -- and, like Siloam, involves input and funding sourced within another state -- indicates that while it may not be the simplest project around, it's certainly not an impossible situation. 

[Bobby5280]

I think the Siloam Springs bypass would potentially be easier to build than the Belle Vista Bypass. It wouldn't cover as much mileage and would thread its way around properties not worth as much money. However, if AR DOT farts around and doesn't get ROW secure for the bypass really soon they're going to see the most practical route alternatives get totally covered up with residential subdivision developments.

Basically, the Siloam Springs bypass would be easiest built to the North of town not far from Flint Creek. New housing is sprouting up in that area. If it gets too over-built that might push a bypass design to the South of Siloam Springs, where it would have to cut through more difficult, hilly territory.

[Scott5114]

^ Thus, I imagine, why the Senators are proposing this now. It's a lot easier to convince the state and federal governments to cough up money to secure ROW when you have a Congressional mandate to do so.

[andy3175]

I'd actually put my two taxable cents in for not pussyfooting around and using I-50 for the designation here.  Not just to use up that I-x0, but because at that time the Muskogee Turnpike could conceivably receive a 3di based on that designation: I-350, just about as close as one can get to the current AR 351 designation (not that anyone in OK outside ODOT and we roadgeeks likely gives a rat's ass about that turnpike number!) so as not to cause too many fits within ODOT!   

Agreed, sparker. And the spur to Cimarron could be I-150.

And ... could this mean US 412 itself could go away between I-35 and I-49 and be replaced with I-50? There are many overlaps along its route west of I-35, and it seems like shifting US 412 to surface routes parallel to the new Interstate would just increase its shared alignments with other routes. Maybe ... but probably not, at least for the short term assuming this proposal comes to fruition.

[Avalanchez71]

Looks like I-46 would be a good fit.  Do you think the tax payer would benefit from a pork project like this one?

Duh?

I was just thinking that the numbering would be a good fit but necessarily the project itself.  I don’t agree with the project and wonder if the tax payers in the area believe that a benefit will be derived from this pork project.  We are talking about using the power of eminent domain to take property.  I don’t take a light look to that issue as the road builders do.

[Scott5114]

Looks like I-46 would be a good fit.  Do you think the tax payer would benefit from a pork project like this one?

Duh?

I was just thinking that the numbering would be a good fit but necessarily the project itself.  I don’t agree with the project and wonder if the tax payers in the area believe that a benefit will be derived from this pork project.  We are talking about using the power of eminent domain to take property.  I don’t take a light look to that issue as the road builders do.

Good thing you don't live here then, huh? As one of the tax payers in the area, I don't think they're spending enough. Taxes in OK are so low our transportation system is 30 years behind.

But then you haven't ever displayed a tendency to look at any transportation project through any perspective deeper than "Mmmmmh! Tax bad! Make bad tax man go away!"

[sprjus4]

We are talking about using the power of eminent domain to take property.

We’re talking about the government fairly buying property at market value. They’re not “taking property” . The government cannot legally do that.

[Plutonic Panda]

We are talking about using the power of eminent domain to take property.

We’re talking about the government fairly buying property at market value. They’re not “taking property” . The government cannot legally do that.

Thank you thank you thank you. I can not stand when people refer to eminent domain as simply “taking property.”  

[MikieTimT]

We are talking about using the power of eminent domain to take property.

We’re talking about the government fairly buying property at market value. They’re not “taking property” . The government cannot legally do that.

Thank you thank you thank you. I can not stand when people refer to eminent domain as simply “taking property.”

In Soviet Russia, property takes you!!
Yakov

[The Ghostbuster]

If the US 412 corridor become an Interstate, it would justify numbering all the exits along the Sand Springs Expressway's segment of 412 (They would be numbered as a continuation of the Cimarron Turnpike's numbers). I'd leave the duplex with 244 and its existing numbers intact (same with the duplex of 44). The Cherokee Turnpike's exits would have to be renumbered (as a continuation of the mileage from the US 412/Interstate 35 interchange). I wouldn't give a designation to the Stillwater Spur (I don't think it needs one), although I would renumber Exits 20A and 21A to 0 and 1.

[Scott5114]

Prior Oklahoma practice in similar situations would be to truncate I-244 at downtown Tulsa and renumber the interchanges accordingly. This is what happened when I-44 was extended over I-240 in OKC in the 80s.

Likewise, prior Oklahoma practice if the interchanges on the Stillwater spur were to be renumbered, they'd likely be 1A and 1B rather than 0 and 1. Oklahoma has historically never used Exit 0; mile 1 is extended to be two miles long.

Of course, since when has Oklahoma transportation ever been self-consistent? They may yet surprise me.

I'm of two minds when it comes to numbering the Stillwater spur. On one hand, it's really just a lengthy offramp to US-177. However, it does have an intermediate interchange at Perkins Road, and experience dealing with the other unnumbered turnpike spur in the Oklahoma turnpike system shows it's kind of awkward to refer to a specific point along it (like someone calling and saying "where are you at?") without having its own name or number. This is even greater of a concern with the Cimarron spur than the Bailey spur because it is longer and passes through a more remote area.

Also, anyone want to tell me what the heck is going on with this mile marker?

[Tom958]

Also, anyone want to tell me what the heck is going on with this mile marker?

It must be seven miles west of the beginning of the Stillwater spur, which is 27 miles east of I-35.

[Scott5114]

Also, anyone want to tell me what the heck is going on with this mile marker?

It must be seven miles west of the beginning of the Stillwater spur, which is 27 miles east of I-35.

Ah, the "A" suffix is being used on all of the spur mileage, which isn't how they do it on the Bailey spur. I had thought that they had decided to put the exit number for exit 20A on the milemarker instead of the gore point for some strange reason. Still, where did they get that font? Is that Eurostile...?

But again, another reason for actually giving the spurs a number of some kind–it would eliminate this weird spur-mileage nonsense.

[sparker]

I'd actually put my two taxable cents in for not pussyfooting around and using I-50 for the designation here.  Not just to use up that I-x0, but because at that time the Muskogee Turnpike could conceivably receive a 3di based on that designation: I-350, just about as close as one can get to the current AR 351 designation (not that anyone in OK outside ODOT and we roadgeeks likely gives a rat's ass about that turnpike number!) so as not to cause too many fits within ODOT!   

Agreed, sparker. And the spur to Cimarron could be I-150.

And ... could this mean US 412 itself could go away between I-35 and I-49 and be replaced with I-50? There are many overlaps along its route west of I-35, and it seems like shifting US 412 to surface routes parallel to the new Interstate would just increase its shared alignments with other routes. Maybe ... but probably not, at least for the short term assuming this proposal comes to fruition.

As far as truncating US 412 is concerned, it's likely that whoever the parties are that proposed and implemented the western extension through the Panhandle and on to I-25 would have a shit fit about removing the designation & signage; obviously they thought that a single designation across that part of OK and into NM was necessary for someone's purposes of navigation.  Snarky idea that blurs the Fictional line here:  If the Raton-Dumas branch of the P2P is ever approved as an Interstate corridor, designate it as the same number (I-50?) as the corridor under discussion here -- and dare the powers that be to connect them!  They're more or less (with a little tweaking in the TX panhandle) on the same latitude.  Hardly needed to address any major through traffic issues in that neck of the woods -- but that hasn't always stopped corridor designation before -- particularly in regards to congressional districts through which it would run!  At least it would be a fun (and funky) way to get from NWA to the Front Range!

[US 89]

Based on what I saw of the US 56/64/412 overlap in NM, I doubt they’d care too much if US 412 disappeared from their state. Half the signs between Clayton and the OK line have 56 all by itself, with no mention of 412 at all. (The other half are weird 56/412 unisigns where they’ve shrunk both numbers and squeezed them into one shield on top of each other - and I don’t recall a single reference to US 64 on that section.)