I-240 extension in Oklahoma City

[kphoger]

I can't believe anybody thinks that the proposed triple terminus is acceptable.

If I'm understanding things correctly, I'm with Scott on this.  Eventually, this will be a single terminus:  I-344 will terminate at I-240.

[Bobby5280]

What state highway is being exited to here? It's not SH-152, because that's the through movement.

Yeah, I-240 would piggy-back with SH-152 as a "thru movement" to a friggin' traffic signal at SW 59th Street. That signal is less than half a mile from that partial interchange with the Kilpatrick Turnpike extension.

Also, for everyone who hasn't seen it, or who has seen it and is pretending they haven't: the reason the new interstate designations start with 3 is because all of OTA's highway numbers start with 3.

Both ends of I-344 terminating at Interstate routes is not the problem. An extension of I-240 ending at a traffic light is the problem.

[bugo]

The proposed I-344 might fit into OTA's numbering scheme, but it's technically a violation, and federal guidelines trump state guidelines. And isn't there a brand new toll road numbered 344 less than 90 miles away? I-344 is a TERRIBLE idea. And yes, I know there is an I-44 and an OK 44, but duplicating numbers so closely together is fucking stupid and ODOT should be ashamed of ever allowing it in the first place. And an urban freeway I-344 90 miles away from an urban freeway OK 344 is completely different from a freeway I-44 and a rural 2 lane OK 44 that goes through Burns Flat as its largest city. I'm not happy with US 266 and OK 266 being as close together as they are either.

[Scott5114]

US-270/OK-270 takes the cake as the stupidest duplication, in my opinion.

If they had known they wanted to use 344 as an Interstate in the OKC area, they should have had OK-344 in Tulsa be OK-397 or something.

[bugo]

US-270/OK-270 takes the cake as the stupidest duplication, in my opinion.
If they had known they wanted to use 344 as an Interstate in the OKC area, they should have had OK-344 in Tulsa be OK-397 or something.

The Gilcrease won't intersect OK 97, so it wouldn't be appropriate. It can't be 344 anymore, it can't be 364, it can't be 361, it can't be 312, it can't be 375, but it could be 366 since it meets OK 66.

[Henry]

They should just sign the Kilpatrick as an extension of I-240 and be done with it. To hell with OTA and their 3xx scheme.

I can't believe anybody thinks that the proposed triple terminus is acceptable. Two Interstates shouldn't terminate at a relatively minor interchange with a 3 digit state highway that is a 5 lane Arkansas Freeway that turns into a 2 lane road in less than 7 miles.  The fact that OK 152 is the mainline doesn't have anything to do with it, as a lot of Interstates exit off themselves. I-44 exits off itself in each direction in Catoosa, for example. Whoever came up with this idea must have been smoking some of that Oologah oregano that has been legal for the last 5 years.

Now that's the best idea I've ever heard for this one!

[kphoger]

The proposed I-344 might fit into OTA's numbering scheme, but it's technically a violation, and federal guidelines trump state guidelines.

Do you have a source to back up the claim that it's a violation?  That is, can you produce a document with the explicit rule being violated?

I pressed this issue in another thread, challenged people to produce such a document, and I don't think anyone actually could.  Maybe I'm forgetting, maybe someone did at some point.

[The Ghostbuster]

They should make the entirety of the John Kilpatrick Turnpike and the Airport Road freeway one designation: whether it becomes Interstate 240, Interstate 344, or even OK 352, they should pick one number and stick with it.

[bugo]

The proposed I-344 might fit into OTA's numbering scheme, but it's technically a violation, and federal guidelines trump state guidelines.

Do you have a source to back up the claim that it's a violation?  That is, can you produce a document with the explicit rule being violated?
I pressed this issue in another thread, challenged people to produce such a document, and I don't think anyone actually could.  Maybe I'm forgetting, maybe someone did at some point.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm

The major route numbers generally traverse urban areas on the path of the major traffic stream. Generally, this major traffic stream will be the shortest and most direct line of travel. Connecting Interstate routes and full or partial circumferential beltways around or within urban areas carry a three-digit number. These routes are designated with the number of the main route and an even-numbered prefix. Supplemental radial and spur routes, connecting with the main route at one end, also carry a three-digit number, using the number of the main route with an odd-number prefix.

To prevent duplication within a State, a progression of prefixes is used for the three-digit numbers. For example, if I-80 runs through three cities in a State, circumferential routes around these cities would be numbered as I-280, I-480, and I-680. The same system would be used for spur routes into the three cities, with routes being numbered I-180, I-380, and I-580, respectively. This system is not carried across State lines. As a result, several cities in different States along I-80 may each have circumferential beltways numbered as I-280 or spur routes numbered as I-180.

[JMoses24]

What state highway is being exited to here? It's not SH-152, because that's the through movement.

Yeah, I-240 would piggy-back with SH-152 as a "thru movement" to a friggin' traffic signal at SW 59th Street. That signal is less than half a mile from that partial interchange with the Kilpatrick Turnpike extension.

Also, for everyone who hasn't seen it, or who has seen it and is pretending they haven't: the reason the new interstate designations start with 3 is because all of OTA's highway numbers start with 3.

Both ends of I-344 terminating at Interstate routes is not the problem. An extension of I-240 ending at a traffic light is the problem.

I'm actually with you on this, which is why I don't believe that's the intention. Rather, you'll probably have a sign that says "END I-240/BEGIN I-344" on the mainline, at the point where JKT currently splits north. It'll switch designations there. I-494/694 in the Minneapolis area was mentioned upthread, and this is how it's signed at the eastern end of those two (I-494 northbound just after exit 58C): 

https://maps.app.goo.gl/b6JMyhNCgzZwT8Po8

Doesn't mean I agree with them doing it. I still think I-344 being there is a hairbrain idea, and there was nothing wrong with having I-240 south of the Kilpatrick/I-40 interchange. If you're insistent on an I-3xx number, I-340 is available.

Of course, there'd also be nothing wrong with OKDOT designating JKT as one number internally, while having it be something separate for the public (say, OK 340 internally, but I-240 for the general public). Georgia and Florida have their state route designations hidden on all interstates.

[JMoses24]

If they're going to do it, this is how I think the I-240/344 and SH 152 interchange might look going west.

[bugo]

Are there any Begin signs in Oklahoma? I don't believe I've ever seen one. I also can't recall seeing an overhead with an END shield on it in the state.

[kphoger]

Are there any Begin signs in Oklahoma? I don't believe I've ever seen one. I also can't recall seeing an overhead with an END shield on it in the state.

I don't recall seeing one either, offhand.

[swake]

Are there any Begin signs in Oklahoma? I don't believe I've ever seen one. I also can't recall seeing an overhead with an END shield on it in the state.

Not an overhead, but here is an END sign in Jenks/Glenpool, OK-117 (121st St.)
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9882924,-96.0122378,3a,75y,89.34h,87.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQvWnt2vB8pAVqz6nP3x8Cg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

The matching sign on the other side does not have a BEGIN
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9884355,-96.0109096,3a,75y,271.93h,100.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skIkXVkRgWdO_1b8pvWpJCg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

[Scott5114]

I have never seen a BEGIN sign in Oklahoma (to the point that they surprise me when I find them in other states).

[rte66man]

Are there any Begin signs in Oklahoma? I don't believe I've ever seen one. I also can't recall seeing an overhead with an END shield on it in the state.

Not an overhead, but here is an END sign in Jenks/Glenpool, OK-117 (121st St.)
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9882924,-96.0122378,3a,75y,89.34h,87.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQvWnt2vB8pAVqz6nP3x8Cg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

The matching sign on the other side does not have a BEGIN
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9884355,-96.0109096,3a,75y,271.93h,100.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skIkXVkRgWdO_1b8pvWpJCg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

END signs are very common in Oklahoma. I can think of 25-30 right off the top of my head. I collect photos of them in my travels across the state. I agree with Scott that I don't recall ever seeing a BEGIN sign either on a pole or on an overhead sign.

[bugo]

Not an overhead, but here is an END sign in Jenks/Glenpool, OK-117 (121st St.)
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9882924,-96.0122378,3a,75y,89.34h,87.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQvWnt2vB8pAVqz6nP3x8Cg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Those assemblies are at the ends of 97% of all state highways in Oklahoma that don't involve state lines. Not having them is much more unusual than having them. In the Tulsa area, OK 11 and US 169 have end sings, but I-244, OK 344 and OK 364 don't. I believe OK 67 has them. There used to be a website dedicated to Oklahoma state highway ends, and nearly all of the state highway ends have end assemblies.

[Bobby5280]

If it was up to me I'd sign the North quadrant of the Kilpatrick Turnpike as I-440 since its East end would be at I-44 and the West end at I-40. Very logical numbering combination. And then South of I-40 the Kilpatrick would turn into I-240. It's a better idea than the I-344 nonsense.

This "theme" of numbering turpikes with OK-3XX or I-3XX numbers is silly. For one thing we're already discussing needless number duplications (OK-344 in Tulsa and proposed I-344 in OKC). There are only so many 2-digit Interstate "parent" routes in Oklahoma; only so many I-3XX routes to go around. What is the OTA going to call the Tri-City Connector if/when it is built around Will Rogers Airport? I-340 would be an odd choice since it would never touch I-40 and would terminate at an I-240 that ends at the very next exit. It would probably make more sense to just sign "I-344" over the Kilpatrick Turnpike AND the Tri-City Connector down to I-44. But then that would mean both ends of I-344 would terminate at I-44.

I don't know if the Feds have a rigid rule against I-3XX routes having both ends terminate at Interstate routes; we do have I-335 in Kansas and I-355 in Illinois after all. But when the Interstate highway system was pitched to the public and described in many printed road atlases the 3-digit route numbering conventions were very very clear. Even numbered routes had both ends connecting to Interstates, often the same parent Interstate. Odd numbered routes were spurs. The OTA is wiping its ass with that rule, convention or whatever anyone wants to call it. Somebody at the OTA likes the number 3.

[kphoger]

Are there any Begin signs in Oklahoma? I don't believe I've ever seen one. I also can't recall seeing an overhead with an END shield on it in the state.

Those assemblies are at the ends of 97% of all state highways in Oklahoma that don't involve state lines. Not having them is much more unusual than having them.

Yeah, and I was looking at interchanges on Google Maps where one number becomes another number, and I couldn't come up with an overhead END that way either.

[JMoses24]

To be clear, I've never seen a "Begin" sign in Oklahoma either. This is just how I would do it if I were mandated to sign a hypothetical I-344/240 transition.

[jdingus]

So I am guessing that Airport Road is officially I-240 now?

[The Ghostbuster]

Your guess is as good as mine. Even with the Interstate 240 and Interstate 344 designations in place, if exit numbers are added to the freeway and tollway (and I definitely think they should), they should be continuous thoughout the entirety of the JKT and Airport Road. They should not restart when 240 becomes 344 and vice versa.

[Bobby5280]

I think they should leave I-240 unsigned on Airport Road, maybe unsigned permanently like I-444 is on the IDL in Tulsa. If/when the Tri-City Connector is built around the West side of Will Rogers Airport that will force the OTA to decide how that will be signed. Will I-344 be extended over the Tri-City Connector down to I-44? If so I-240 could then be signed along Airport Road to that interchange with the Tri-City Connector. That would make more sense than letting I-240 end at an ordinary partial exit for a surface street.

[The Ghostbuster]

I would vote for either keeping the Airport Road Freeway part of OK 152 or making it part of Interstate 344. They should leave Interstate 240 at its present length. The proposal to make Interstate 240 a full beltway around Oklahoma City was a ludicrous proposal anyway.

[Bobby5280]

I wouldn't have minded I-240 being signed over Airport Road and all of the Kilpatrick Turnpike. But their idea of signing it over the Kickapoo Turnpike was just too much.

Regarding I-344 and Airport Road, I would not mind OTA/ODOT signing all of the Kilpatrick Turnpike and Airport Road as I-344. That would make more sense than the I-240/I-344 split in Mustang. The whole thing could be signed as I-344 immediately. Then, years in the future, when they build the Tri-City Connector that could use another I-x44 number.

But there are only so many of those I-x44 route numbers available. They need to be using more I-x35 and I-x40 designations in the OKC area. If they had used something like my idea of signing the Kilpatrick extension as I-240 and the Northern portion as I-440 that would have left the various I-x44 possibilities for elsewhere. The Tulsa metro will likely need to use one or more of those in the future. I can think of at least one I-x44 possibility here in Lawton.