Proposed US 412 Upgrade

[The Ghostbuster]

I think I like Alternative 2 the best. It connects Diamond Head Rd. with OK 151, which I think is the most logical way to eliminate the existing at-grade intersection with US 412. I suppose Alternative 5 would be my second choice, and if the people of Oklahoma don't understand roundabouts (depending how common roundabouts are in the state of Oklahoma), come to Wisconsin where there are plenty of them.

[zzcarp]

I think they'll have a hard time justifying spending $22 million for Option 5 when they can do Option 2 for just of $3.5 million. By price alone it has to be Option 2, or at most potentially a $10 million Option 1.

[Plutonic Panda]

Knowing ODOT yeah they're not usually the kind of agency wanting to spend big bucks on projects.

[US 89]

This isn't even an issue of DOTs being cheap. This is an issue of there are maybe twenty houses at most that this at-grade intersection serves. There is zero reason to mess with the 151/64-412 interchange when the only issue at play here is how those 20 houses connect to the outside world.

Unlike some cases where going with the cheapest option results in significant downgrades compared to other options, there are essentially zero downsides to option 2 here. The only people that won't like it are the two people who live in those houses who will be annoyed they now have to go to 151 to take 64-412 west instead of just turning left like they do now. They'll get used to it.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm not talking about adding an additional interchange. I'm talking about dealing with existing interchange and modernizing it. So yes it is about a DOT being cheap. I'm not even going to double down and blame ODOT. They aren't properly funded.

[Scott5114]

I don't even know that there's even anything wrong with that interchange that requires "modernizing". It's just a trumpet interchange. There's not anything inherently wrong with them, unless the geometry is fucked up somehow (but that can happen to any interchange type).

[Great Lakes Roads]

Knowing ODOT, they are probably going with either Option 2 or Option 5...

[splashflash]

This isn't even an issue of DOTs being cheap. This is an issue of there are maybe twenty houses at most that this at-grade intersection serves.

It seems ODOT is selling this as a safety improvement, which it is regardless of which option or modification thereof is chosen.  Option 2 would probably be considered adequate by the tone of an article below.

Pretty good article
https://tulsaworld.com/news/community/sand-springs/sand-springs-area-residents-weigh-in-on-u-s-412-diamond-head-drive-plan/article_b9aa801a-981e-11ee-a9d4-13c31d031979.html

Judy Elkhoury, who said she has lived in the neighborhood for 15 years, said most of Diamond Head's residents are there "because it is secluded; because it is so quiet and away."

"Do we want more traffic? Do we want it to be that easy?" she asked.

"It's amazing to me that with our little neighborhood they (ODOT) would be willing to go to the extent of some of these enormously expensive projects just to accommodate our community, so that's impressive," she said.

Sims lauded the attendees for their efforts to understand the scope of the proposals.

[edwaleni]

If they want seclusion, bridge over US-412 and put in a frontage road to connect to 9th Street.

Seclusion comes with other issues, like life safety.  Not being connected to US-412 will probably increase first responder times.

The more mundane issues will be the fact that the Amazon or Domino's delivery guy won't be able to find you.

[sprjus4]

If they want seclusion, bridge over US-412 and put in a frontage road to connect to 9th Street.

Seclusion comes with other issues, like life safety.  Not being connected to US-412 will probably increase first responder times.

The more mundane issues will be the fact that the Amazon or Domino's delivery guy won't be able to find you.

I think the lady was referring to the interchange proposal more than anything. Simply routing a frontage road over OK-151 interchange without bridge structures would be the cheapest and best option here - while also keeping their community secluded but with easy access at the same time.

[Bobby5280]

In the Display Boards PDF they list the pros and cons of all the proposed alternatives.

The main pro of Alternative 2 is it's less out of direction than Alternative 1A/1B (those two bridge over US-412 to connect to an extended access road on the other side of US-412). Alternative 2 has a shorter road to OK-151. Less cost and improved emergency response times.

The main con of Alternative 2 is a safety issue. They list the new at-grade intersection with OK-151 as a problem since it is at the edge of the OK-151 & US-412 trumpet interchange. It is a higher speed system interchange. But what about Wekiwa Road? That street already connects into OK-151 at that point. The Alternative 2 proposal would simply patch a new neighborhood street into that existing at-grade intersection. There are concerns about impacts to the USACE office, but this is already a publicly accessible area. There is a parking lot across from the turn to Wekiwa Road for the Two Rivers Trail.

There is about 3 dozen residential homes in the Diamond Head neighborhood. I think $3.5 million to build a new neighborhood street and remove the at-grade intersection on US-412 is a good enough solution for that. Alternative 6 would be a "living in a perfect world solution" -one where $29.3 million can be spent to remove an at grade intersection to a neighborhood with fewer than 100 residents.

[The Ghostbuster]

This is what the existing OK 151/W. Wekiwa Rd. intersection looks like: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1545876,-96.2500026,3a,75y,119.6h,73.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfOyhgSkm9F9aibjJNUTNEw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. In addition, this is what the existing US 64/US 412/Diamond Head Dr. intersection looks like: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1640434,-96.2517962,3a,75y,242.84h,92.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6D3BmDYHBHu9ciPFN9_LEA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D6D3BmDYHBHu9ciPFN9_LEA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D328.7277%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. Whichever alternative is chosen will likely be a vast improvement over how it exists at present.

[rte66man]

This isn't even an issue of DOTs being cheap. This is an issue of there are maybe twenty houses at most that this at-grade intersection serves.

It seems ODOT is selling this as a safety improvement, which it is regardless of which option or modification thereof is chosen.  Option 2 would probably be considered adequate by the tone of an article below.

Pretty good article
https://tulsaworld.com/news/community/sand-springs/sand-springs-area-residents-weigh-in-on-u-s-412-diamond-head-drive-plan/article_b9aa801a-981e-11ee-a9d4-13c31d031979.html

Judy Elkhoury, who said she has lived in the neighborhood for 15 years, said most of Diamond Head's residents are there "because it is secluded; because it is so quiet and away."

"Do we want more traffic? Do we want it to be that easy?" she asked.

"It's amazing to me that with our little neighborhood they (ODOT) would be willing to go to the extent of some of these enormously expensive projects just to accommodate our community, so that's impressive," she said.

Sims lauded the attendees for their efforts to understand the scope of the proposals.

Moving the intersection to OK151 at Wekiva Rd is way safer than having traffic pull out on a road that is assumed to be a freeway by most drivers (meaning they will go much faster than the posted limit).

Westbound 412
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1636616,-96.2512234,3a,75y,320.49h,64.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEj7i2bLW_bfvjuo9Q5TwFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttu

From Diamond Head Dr
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1639931,-96.2518974,3a,75y,339.06h,86.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYi7n2QF422BWFIQS6nRHng!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?authuser=0&entry=ttu

[intelati49]

I think they'll have a hard time justifying spending $22 million for Option 5 when they can do Option 2 for just of $3.5 million. By price alone it has to be Option 2, or at most potentially a $10 million Option 1.

When one option is literally 1/3 of the cost and impact of the others, the deck does seem stacked.

[JREwing78]

Alternative 2 basically pushes the safety problems a little up the road and off US-412. That's probably OK for now; if the Diamond Head neighborhood ever expands or more development on the north side of US-412 occurs, there's nothing precluding ODOT from rebuilding the OK-151 interchange even with building Alternative 2.

Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 are excessive and unnecessary when Alternative 2 exists.

I see the overpasses for OK-151 were recently replaced on US-412, and the pavement through the interchange is due to be rebuilt anyway; Alternative 5 may ultimately be the best option of the group. I would try to line up Wekiwa Rd with the new access road for Diamond Head at the same roundabout; there's no reason for it to be a separate intersection.

[MikieTimT]

I also submitted an inquiry to ARDOT's website to hopefully get in front of Lorie Tudor, who is the director of ARDOT and on AASHTO that stated the following:

US-412 is currently being studied to upgrade to interstate status per the legislative mandate from Arkansas' and Oklahoma's sponsored legislation and I recently saw that the application was withdrawn.  I am hoping that the reason is because the designation for I-42 has already been proposed for a facility in North Carolina that will never have a logical connection to any of US-412.  Since Lori Tudor is an AASHTO representative, she has a platform to suggest the designation of the interstate during this process of conversion to interstate from I-35 to I-49.  Since the majority of the facility being considered is also concurrent with the High Priority Corridor Designation #8 of the 1991 ISTEA legislation from Tulsa to Nashville, it is a small portion of what was foreseen to be major E/W corridor in the center of the U.S.  Since Arkansas' plan is to have US-412 a 4 lane corridor all across the state, it seems like this would be a good marketing opportunity to request a designation that would foreshadow the eventual growth of the interstate east of Springdale and across the northern tier of Arkansas and through the western half of Tennessee as both areas are continually growing.  And I can think of no better marketing number for the interstate than I-50.  Imagine, Springdale is the center of the Interstate Highway System in numbering, and there really is no better area than US-412 to have the number 50.  The marketing benefits to the state are immense.  I-50 and I-60 were never designated when the IHS was originally designed so as not to have any route numbering collisions with a U.S. highway of the same number in a state.  Since our numbering has evolved past just a number for any given route in a state, for example, Arkansas has both a US-49 and an I-49, there doesn't seem to be a valid reason NOT to use the number 50 for an interstate designation.  I know that I-44 will cross south in Tulsa of whatever designation is given to the new interstate, but it is I-44 that breaks the interstate numbering grid being that it is a diagonal road, so whatever US-412 is destined to become, it needs to be as close to grid compliance as possible between I-40 and I-70 which are E/W interstates that US-412 never crosses.  I-50 would be a great designation for it, and I can find no other place anywhere in the U.S. that it really could ever be.  Ideally, I-50 would subsume the entire US-412 corridor eventually between I-25 and I-65, but the growth trends west of I-35 at this point would mean that any western extension would likely occur in the future long past our lifetimes.  However, in naming this new interstate, we need to consider what happens long after we're gone, so it would make for an excellent legacy to leave.  Can you please forward this on to Lorie Tudor for discussion during AASHTO proceedings that relate to this road project?  I have also made the same suggestion to my US House representative as well as both of my senators, however, only one ever contacted me about this idea.  Thanks for your time and for doing what it takes to get this project developed and marketed.

Got a response back from an ARDOT construction engineer in District 9, which follows:

First i would like to say that this is not my area of expertise.  I am on the construction end of highway projects, so most of the decisions like you mention above are already made by the time I get involved.  Having said that I have gathered some info and will share it with you.
The Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act, passed by Congress in 2021, identified the general Highway 412 corridor between I-35 in Oklahoma and I-49 in Arkansas as a Future Interstate.  As a result, the Arkansas and Oklahoma Department of Transportations are taking several actions to advance this Future Interstate corridor, such as:
•   Conducting a Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL) study to determine where the existing corridor does not currently meet Interstate standards, and determine how to most efficiently improve the roadway.
•   Submitting an application to AASHTO to designate this corridor as a Future Interstate.  As you mentioned, a route designation application was submitted to the AASHTO route numbering committee during their recent Fall meeting, but was withdrawn when committee members indicated concern with duplicating North Carolina's number.  We and Oklahoma intend to resubmit the application at a future meeting, in accordance with Congress's intention.

It is important to know that while Congress designated this corridor as a "High Priority Corridor", they did not provide any dedicated funding for roadway improvements.  As such, there are no immediate plans to make the improvements identified within the PEL study.  Oklahoma has some sections that are at Interstate standards that may be signed as an Interstate rather soon, but without dedicated funding, we are still years from having a completed Interstate corridor.  This is the same funding challenge experienced by several other Future Interstate corridors in the state (I-49, I-57, and I-69).

Continuing eastward across Arkansas, Highway 412 is a vitally important east-west corridor connecting numerous communities across the Ozark Mountains and Arkansas Delta.  To this end, the Department completed a study in 2020 that considered needed improvements to this route.  The study recommended a series of improvements (to be implemented as funds become available), starting with safety and operational improvements (like passing lanes),and ultimately resulting in a four-lane corridor across the state.  Owing to the moderate traffic volumes, rugged terrain, and exceptionally high costs, an Interstate style facility was not recommended by this study.
I have also attached the study referenced above. (The attachment was the 2020 HIGHWAY 412 CORRIDOR PLANNING STUDY UPDATE (OKLAHOMA TO MISSOURI), which is somewhat out of date now that there is legislation for upgrading US-412 west of I-49 to an interstate facility.)

So, there isn't any interest from ARDOT's perspective on any further interstate mileage east of I-49 at this time for US-412, so any changes to that perspective would likely come in the form of Congressional legislation as well.  Kind of puts the kibosh on hopes for an I-50 along that route unless it becomes the idea of someone with more national pull than myself.  I wrote my congresspeople, so I did what I could do unless I miraculously get more sway in political circles.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ thank for doing that! It really adds to the conversation knowing a bit about the decisions behind the DOTs. Good stuff.

[bugo]

I sent ArDOT a message on December 4 asking about US 412, and I still haven't received a response. I got a quick response from ODOT, however, and I posted the reply in this thread.

[MikieTimT]

I sent ArDOT a message on December 4 asking about US 412, and I still haven't received a response. I got a quick response from ODOT, however, and I posted the reply in this thread.

I submitted an inquiry after creating an account at https://ardot.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(u5hwtawz5rjmaztuawl4vjiq))/SupportHome.aspx, and they got back to me quite quickly.  I wonder if it's because I'm an Arkansas resident, though, and can vote on their budget.  I submitted a followup question to see if I could get a contact for someone responsible for the designation submission in the future, but I won't hold my breath.  Never hurts to try though!  Below is my follow-up response:

Thanks so much for the information regarding the submission withdrawal and what the current status of the US-412 upgrades across the state.  Looks like the 2020 study doesn't fulfill the upgrades west of I-49, but I assume everything to the east remains unchanged without funding or legislative approval at the federal level.  I appreciate the time and effort you put into responding to me, and know that I am but one of many people across the country who are interested in this project.  In fact, I belong to a road forum (aaroads.com) full of roadgeeks like myself who take great interest in the job that you and the others at ARDOT and ODOT have ahead of you in regards to this road and it's future.  I took the liberty of posting your response to a thread in the forum since it's all public information, but I didn't include your name in the post for your personal privacy, although I suspect that you wouldn't respond to me with anything that wasn't for public dissemination anyway.

I do have a follow-up question.  Do you have any suggestions on who to contact in regards to suggestions on what the road gets designated?  I know that to maintain the integrity of the road numbering grid standard (I-44 being a diagonal which isn't really on the grid anyway being a local exception) the facility would need to be I-46, I-48, I-50, or I-52 to maintain a semblance of grid compatibility with its latitude relative to I-40 and I-70.  I know that originally I-50 and I-60 were omitted due to potential conflicts in route numbers with existing US highways at mid latitudes, but me and several others in the roadgeek community have strong opinions that this facility would make for a great location for an I-50, even though we know that within our lifetimes, it isn't likely to be extended past the current congressionally mandated endpoints.  Just thinking about legacy at this point and don't want to be shortsighted.

Thanks again for your time and consideration.  I appreciate the ability to contact my DOT and the job they do with the limited resources available to it.  I do what I can to vote for more funds for roads when they pop up on the ballot.  Roads are the foundation that keeps the economic machine in Arkansas supported after all.

[triplemultiplex]

Good to know there is still some sanity left out there.
Duplicating I numbers when there are plenty available... 

Cross off all y'all's 42's and replace them with 46's; resubmit.

[bugo]

On the Arkansas side of the border, you can rest assured that they won't be.  When I-49 shields went up, the US-71 shields came down.

When the I-49 shields went up, the US 71 shields were long gone, other than the section north of US 62. The I-540 shields replaced the US 62/71 shields. And the US 62/71 shields didn't immediately go away, as this image, taken soon after I-540 was completed between Mountainburg and Fayetteville, attests. The I-540 shields went down the day the I-49 shields, which was typical stupid ArrrrghDOT bullshit.

[Wayward Memphian]

It needs to be a 4 lane divided to the US 65 Junction just north of Harrison, which means the stretch between Huntsville and Alpena gets don't.and a 4 lane divided bypass of Harrision. After that, they can 5 lane/Arkansas freeway the rest if they want. However tey shouldn't settle for that because it would be most beneficial to have an upgradable to interstate 4 lane divided highway between NWA and NEA.

[MikieTimT]

It needs to be a 4 lane divided to the US 65 Junction just north of Harrison, which means the stretch between Huntsville and Alpena gets don't.and a 4 lane divided bypass of Harrision. After that, they can 5 lane/Arkansas freeway the rest if they want. However tey shouldn't settle for that because it would be most beneficial to have an upgradable to interstate 4 lane divided highway between NWA and NEA.

Same could be said from I-155 to Walnut Ridge in conjunction with extending I-555 from Jonesboro at least up to Hardy, if not Mammoth Springs, where Missouri could probably find incentive to match up from there to Willow Springs and US-60.  I-555 likely needs a new designation at that point, which I could get on board as I-22.

Between Harrison and Hardy would likely be the last segment to get the treatment due to traffic counts on US-412 in the midsection.

[Wayward Memphian]

It needs to be a 4 lane divided to the US 65 Junction just north of Harrison, which means the stretch between Huntsville and Alpena gets don't.and a 4 lane divided bypass of Harrision. After that, they can 5 lane/Arkansas freeway the rest if they want. However tey shouldn't settle for that because it would be most beneficial to have an upgradable to interstate 4 lane divided highway between NWA and NEA.

Same could be said from I-155 to Walnut Ridge in conjunction with extending I-555 from Jonesboro at least up to Hardy, if not Mammoth Springs, where Missouri could probably find incentive to match up from there to Willow Springs and US-60.  I-555 likely needs a new designation at that point, which I could get on board as I-22.

Between Harrison and Hardy would likely be the last segment to get the treatment due to traffic counts on US-412 in the midsection.

Exactly what needs to happen along with Missouri upgrading US 412 as a four lane divided from the St. Francis River up to Kennett.

[Wayward Memphian]

It needs to be a 4 lane divided to the US 65 Junction just north of Harrison, which means the stretch between Huntsville and Alpena gets don't.and a 4 lane divided bypass of Harrision. After that, they can 5 lane/Arkansas freeway the rest if they want. However tey shouldn't settle for that because it would be most beneficial to have an upgradable to interstate 4 lane divided highway between NWA and NEA.

Same could be said from I-155 to Walnut Ridge in conjunction with extending I-555 from Jonesboro at least up to Hardy, if not Mammoth Springs, where Missouri could probably find incentive to match up from there to Willow Springs and US-60.  I-555 likely needs a new designation at that point, which I could get on board as I-22.

Between Harrison and Hardy would likely be the last segment to get the treatment due to traffic counts on US-412 in the midsection.

Exactly what needs to happen along with Missouri upgrading US 412 as a four lane divided from the St. Francis River up to Kennett.

Well, I can't attach a pic