Oklahoma Turner Turnpike lighting project?

[hbelkins]

Was I dreaming, or was there a thread here about lighting on an improved segment of the Turner Turnpike?

[rte66man]

You're not dreaming.  I saw it too. I've seen topics locked but I don't remember a topic deleted on this particular board.

[davewiecking]

Don't remember whether the thread was in this section, but OP mentioned section of Tpk being widened to 6 lanes, and fancy lighting in median, and asked "who approved this project?" followed by someone else's 2 word post "who cares?", followed by 2 confusing intermeshing discussions of whether the extra capacity was worthwhile, or whether the fancy lighting was actually the topic.

[Plutonic Panda]

Perhaps you're referring to a project SW of Tulsa expanding the six lane section which will reconstruct and create an urban Freeway corridor with lighting... it will be funded by the statewide Driving Forward Initiative which has every project complete or underway except for the Gilcrease Expressway extension which is set to begin next year.

20 miles
Reconstruction for more lanes and safety features including lights and other future safety enhancements.

The Turner Turnpike is a vital turnpike corridor that connects Oklahoma's two metro areas. Improving safety and convenience on this road is a priority for the OTA. This reconstruction/safety project will occur between Bristow and the Creek Turnpike West (State Highway 364) section of the Turner Turnpike. In the last five years there have been 15 fatalities and 514 wrecks on this section of road. This project will create an "urban turnpike corridor"  with lighting, wider lanes and the addition of lanes. It will allow for the future creation of truck-specific lanes for quick and safe access

- http://www.drivingforwardok.com/copy-of-turner-turnpike

[okc1]

which has every project complete or finished except for the Gilcrease Expressway extension which is set to begin next year.

Several projects are underway, but not complete, including the SW OKC extension of the Kilpatrick and the Eastern OK County Tpk, where tree clearing is underway.

[Plutonic Panda]

which has every project complete or finished except for the Gilcrease Expressway extension which is set to begin next year.

Several projects are underway, but not complete, including the SW OKC extension of the Kilpatrick and the Eastern OK County Tpk, where tree clearing is underway.

Yes that was a typo! I fixed it.

[hbelkins]

Don't remember whether the thread was in this section, but OP mentioned section of Tpk being widened to 6 lanes, and fancy lighting in median, and asked "who approved this project?" followed by someone else's 2 word post "who cares?", followed by 2 confusing intermeshing discussions of whether the extra capacity was worthwhile, or whether the fancy lighting was actually the topic.

I'm pretty sure it was in this board. I searched the word "Sapulpa" because it appeared in the original post, but using that search term didn't turn up the thread.

I was interested because someone had complained about it being a poor use of tax dollars when there were other transportation issues to be addressed, and someone else saying that "Transportation" in the agency's name should be replaced with "Highways."

I pointed out that this was a Turnpike Authority project and that the toll revenues wouldn't be going to fund highway or mass transit projects elsewhere unless Oklahoma pulled a Pennsylvania Act 44.

That was the last I saw of the thread. Even a search of posts by one person I know posted in that thread turned up nothing.

I didn't see where it had turned into a flame war or devolved into personal attacks to require locking, much less deleting.

[Scott5114]

My understanding of what happened is that the original poster of the thread submitted a report for the thread to be removed because the topic did not go in the direction the OP was wanting. Another moderator granted the request without realizing that the thread had not gone "off-topic" and was still road-related.

Unfortunately, the moderator in question hard-deleted the thread instead of simply making it unavailable publicly, as is our standard practice, so the thread is now unrecoverable.

[bugo]

That moderator should be suspended. The mods here are too delete happy and lock happy anyway.

A certain poster claimed that bike lanes should be built on the Turner Turnpike in that thread. That's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard in my life. Bike lanes on a road with a 75 mile hour speed limit?

[Plutonic Panda]

That moderator should be suspended. The mods here are too delete happy and lock happy anyway.

A certain poster claimed that bike lanes should be built on the Turner Turnpike in that thread. That's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard in my life. Bike lanes on a road with a 75 mile hour speed limit?

I know in California I have seen signs that allow cyclists to use the shoulders of various interstates such as I-15 and i think I-40z

[hotdogPi]

That moderator should be suspended. The mods here are too delete happy and lock happy anyway.

A certain poster claimed that bike lanes should be built on the Turner Turnpike in that thread. That's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard in my life. Bike lanes on a road with a 75 mile hour speed limit?

I know in California I have seen signs that allow cyclists to use the shoulders of various interstates such as I-15 and i think I-40z

Those aren't dedicated bike lanes.

[US 89]

That moderator should be suspended. The mods here are too delete happy and lock happy anyway.

A certain poster claimed that bike lanes should be built on the Turner Turnpike in that thread. That's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard in my life. Bike lanes on a road with a 75 mile hour speed limit?

I know in California I have seen signs that allow cyclists to use the shoulders of various interstates such as I-15 and i think I-40z

Those aren't dedicated bike lanes.

In most rural areas in the west, bicycles are allowed on the shoulders of interstates. But dedicated bike lanes on an interstate sounds like a recipe for disaster. IMO, if there is a usable alternate (such as the old alignment of a pre-interstate US highway), then bicycles should be using that instead of the interstate.

[hbelkins]

My understanding of what happened is that the original poster of the thread submitted a report for the thread to be removed because the topic did not go in the direction the OP was wanting. Another moderator granted the request without realizing that the thread had not gone "off-topic" and was still road-related.

Unfortunately, the moderator in question hard-deleted the thread instead of simply making it unavailable publicly, as is our standard practice, so the thread is now unrecoverable.

Then maybe I need to request the hard-deletion of a bunch of the threads I've started that veered off the rails and got locked. 

A certain poster claimed that bike lanes should be built on the Turner Turnpike in that thread. That's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard in my life. Bike lanes on a road with a 75 mile hour speed limit?

Corridor H (US 48 in West Virginia) doesn't have bike lanes, but it is designated as a bike route. The speed limit is 65 mph and traffic routinely goes faster. Of course, the road has wide shoulders and bicycles are directed to use the ramps at grade-separated interchanges.

But I can't see the purpose of building bike lanes on a toll road.



As to the original topic, does this section of the Turner Turnpike have a high crash rate? A large number of vehicle vs. deer collisions, perhaps? If so, the lighting is a safety issue.

[Plutonic Panda]

I don't see the need for bike lanes on interstates. Really, I don't see a difference if there was a bike or not, it wouldn't stop someone going at interstate speeds from hitting you if it were to happen anyways and wouldn't function any differently than a shoulder. Technically you're not supposed to block bike lanes but that's common practice here in LA and me along with most cyclists don't make a big deal of it and go around the car. But on interstates and freeways bike lanes would be essentially useless, IMO.

[Bobby5280]

I've seen bicycle signs on some stretches of I-25 in Southern Colorado. The first time I saw one I had a "whaaa??" kind of reaction. They couldn't pay me enough to pedal a bicycle on the shoulder of an Interstate highway. Anyone doing that in current times must have a death wish, given the plague of distracted driving, compulsive mobile phone use, etc. I don't even trust "shared" lanes on city streets, like the few "bike lanes" they signed here in Lawton.

A dedicated bike path built separately from a freeway might not be a bad thing. But for safety purposes some kind of barrier would still be needed between the vehicle main lanes and the bike path. Lots of stretches of Interstate highway have big areas off to the sides of the road (still in the ROW) cleared of trees and other obstructions. But that's a safety feature for cars that happen to lose control. There's more room to (hopefully) slide to a stop without hitting anything. If someone builds a bike path off to the right of the shoulder that's going to be a new obstruction or target for out of control vehicles to hit.

[hotdogPi]

Keep in mind that it was "a certain poster" (according to bugo) who proposed the bike lanes. While I don't know who this is, it is definitely not anyone with the authority to make it actually happen, just like how FritzOwl can't make I-21 happen through Yellowstone.

[NE2]

Suck it.

[Beltway]

They couldn't pay me enough to pedal a bicycle on the shoulder of an Interstate highway. Anyone doing that in current times must have a death wish, given the plague of distracted driving, compulsive mobile phone use, etc.

I can't imagine riding a bicycle on the shoulder of an Interstate highway.   I have ridden my bike across the new Huguenot Bridge in Richmond, VA, and that is a 2-lane highway with a 45 mph speed limit and it carries about 28,000 AADT, and has 10-foot shoulders, and a great view of the James River.  Even at those speeds the traffic is very noisy and it is not a pleasant experience.  And it is only a mile long.

[Scott5114]

Why would anyone need to ride a bike on I-44? The main defining characteristic of I-44 is that old US-66 is right there.

[skluth]

Good grief. There is absolutely no reason for bike lanes on I-44 and I'm a big supporter of bike lanes and other bicycle infrastructure. I used to bicycle commute in Madison WI and used main thoroughfares. But it's one thing to cycle along at 25 when drivers doing 35-40 and in theory is paying attention to their surroundings. It's quite another to deal with drivers doing 65 or more who are often paying less attention because it's a rural interstate, especially every time a semi goes past which can be tough even in a small car. I can understand a separated bike path on the fringes of the ROW. But if they really need a rural bike route, it would be better to just pave the shoulders of parallel roads.