Proposed US 412 Upgrade

[sparker]

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.)

Something tells me that the idea for US 412 was germinated elsewhere (likely OK, AR, or TN) and more or less imposed upon NM, who have decided to do little more than make a half-assed effort at signage.  Can't really blame them for not making their crews head out and post additional signs over a road that's been signed as US 56 since 1957!  If and when an Interstate is signed on the corridor from I-35 to I-49, it certainly wouldn't be inappropriate for NMDOT and ODOT to jointly request rescinding US 412 west of I-35 -- and maybe even, with ADOT concurrence, west of I-49.  But even with the long multiplex with US 62 across northern AR, it'll probably stick around east of there simply because it does carry considerable through traffic from Walnut Ridge east to Jackson, TN.  Personally, I'd renumber it as US 162 or US 170, but obviously someone with clout has decided that the "400" series of US routes should delineate the more recent multistate Midwest corridors. 

[Bobby5280]

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...?

It looks kind of like Helvetica Neue Bold Condensed to me.

Anyone else notice the new mile markers ODOT has been installing on "free" Interstate routes? A couple or so months ago we got new ones on I-44 in the Lawton area installed every half mile. They have the I-44 shield on them.

[Scott5114]

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...?

It looks kind of like Helvetica Neue Bold Condensed to me.

The boxy '0' makes me think Eurostile. But it's apparently a one-off; 21A is in proper Series C.

Anyone else notice the new mile markers ODOT has been installing on "free" Interstate routes? A couple or so months ago we got new ones on I-44 in the Lawton area installed every half mile. They have the I-44 shield on them.

Those are the enhanced mile markers from the MUTCD. I got to see the first ones they put up; their beta-test segment was on I-35 from Purcell through Goldsby and into Norman. They're more or less the same markers that Missouri uses on all of their Interstates, but Missouri places them every 0.2 miles (and uses ".0" on the whole-mile markers, which ODOT omits).

[US71]

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...?

It looks kind of like Helvetica Neue Bold Condensed to me.

Anyone else notice the new mile markers ODOT has been installing on "free" Interstate routes? A couple or so months ago we got new ones on I-44 in the Lawton area installed every half mile. They have the I-44 shield on them.

MoDOT does every 2/10 of a mile

[Strider]

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?

Really? NC doesn't interstate everything. Get your facts right, bro.

[Scott5114]

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?

Really? NC doesn't interstate everything. Get your facts right, bro.

they'll get around to making your driveway a 3di at the next SCOURN meeting, chill

[Avalanchez71]

I could US 412 sticking around from TN into NWA.  As mentioned there is a significant amount of folks that trailblaze US 412 from Jackson to NWA.

[edwaleni]

I could US 412 sticking around from TN into NWA.  As mentioned there is a significant amount of folks that trailblaze US 412 from Jackson to NWA.

Not likely for commercial traffic. Perhaps for leisure.

NASH-TUL either takes I-40 via Little Rock to the Muskogee Turnpike or I-24 to US-60 across Missouri (even with the Cairo Bridge involved)
MEM-KCMO doesn't even use it. They prefer I-55 to I-70 then across.

Between TUL-NWA it may be busy, but any trailblazing is done by the leisure folk, not commercial between Jackson TN and NWA.

I get why you see an opportunity west of Jackson TN, but US-412 in NEA is really an in-state arterial.

[sparker]

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?

Really? NC doesn't interstate everything. Get your facts right, bro.

they'll get around to making your driveway a 3di at the next SCOURN meeting, chill

They (NCDOT and their political handlers) only request Interstate status for those freeways included in the state's "master plan" for such -- which pretty much takes in every arterial connector in the state.  In practical terms, more or less the polar opposite regarding OK practice:  the US 412 Interstate proposal had to come from its (and AR's) congressional delegation; it certainly wasn't germinated within ODOT.       

[MikieTimT]

Just drove US-412 today from Walnut Ridge, AR to Springdale, AR coming back from Jonesboro from a job.  Always a fun stretch of road that I'd always choose over the faster/longer jog down US-63/AR-226/US-67/US-64/I-40/I-49, but had to be at a jobsite in Little Rock just before, so that tied my hands on the route out to NEA.  It's 40 miles shorter and more to look at with curves and hills to entertain the driving enthusiast, not to mention that northern AR is pretty much a temperate rainforest this spring with lush vegetation and swollen creeks and rivers.  Really there's only 4 places where traffic was less than free flowing on a holiday week as there are more passing lanes than there used to be, but it could stand one more between Imboden and Ravenden, 1 to 2 more between Viola and Henderson, 3 more passing lanes east of US-65 in Boone County along with a northern bypass of Harrison, and 2 to 3 more in the 33 miles between Alpena and Huntsville.  That would pretty much bring parity on travel time from NEA to NWA and reduce mileage slightly over the current route by bypassing Harrison to the north.  I really don't see justification for making a limited access facility on any portion east of Harrison and west of Hardy other than perhaps the bypass portion.  But that's outside the scope of this proposal anyway.

[Bobby5280]

I think it's plausible to do upgrades of US-412 in Northern Arkansas in various spots, like 4-laning the road where feasible or even building some grade-separated interchanges. But a full-blown Interstate upgrade from Springdale to I-55 would be overkill, not to mention very disruptive to some of the more scenic/tourist-centric locations along the way.

If this new OK-AR Interstate proposal were to be extended any direction I would prefer it go West from I-35 over to Enid and Woodward. The Enid part would be a pretty easy upgrade. Making a bypass around Enid and going West would cost more. But Woodward has a lot of potential as a distribution hub. The Southern Transcon (one of the busiest freight rail corridors in the nation) goes through Woodward.

[Avalanchez71]

Will this project really be needed in the areas already covered by the OK turnpikes?

[Bobby5280]

In the case of the Cimarron Turnpike, the only thing involved would be changing signs. The Cherokee Turnpike doesn't cover all the area between Tulsa and Springdale. There are gaps that absolutely do need to be upgraded into limited access form regardless of the road being signed as an Interstate or not.

[sprjus4]

Will this project really be needed in the areas already covered by the OK turnpikes?

What exactly would they build? The turnpikes would be incorporated as limited access segments. The Cherokee is posted up to 80 mph. No need to build a new route where they exist.

[The Ghostbuster]

Does anyone see US 412 between Interstate 44 and the western terminus of the Cherokee Turnpike being built as a tolled future Interstate (a western extension of the CT) or a non-tolled Interstate? I definitely see the segment east of the Cherokee Turnpike being built as a non-toll road, but am unsure of the other portion. What do you guys think?

[sparker]

Does anyone see US 412 between Interstate 44 and the western terminus of the Cherokee Turnpike being built as a tolled future Interstate (a western extension of the CT) or a non-tolled Interstate? I definitely see the segment east of the Cherokee Turnpike being built as a non-toll road, but am unsure of the other portion. What do you guys think?

That's probably something that'll be hashed around and volleyed back & forth between ODOT and OTA.  Best guess:  I-44 to the western end of the present Cherokee facility would simply be built as a western extension of the Cherokee, since it would tie more or less directly into both the Will Rogers (I-44) and Creek (OK 364) turnpikes at its west terminus, making for a continuous or connected turnpike run (and which may precipitate a 3di/x44 for the Creek).  East of the existing Cherokee would probably be a built as a freeway to placate local Siloam traffic (as well as giving AR drivers ample time to get off & shunpike if they want).  But since the OK "idiom" has been established with I-44: most of it toll except for metro areas, it would probably be deemed acceptable to do so with the new E-W Interstate corridor as well, since to the west it doesn't change to a toll facility until beyond the populated area and to the east a toll facility is expected at some point anyway.  I would imagine Tulsa folks are accustomed to the practice by now!

[Strider]

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?

Really? NC doesn't interstate everything. Get your facts right, bro.

they'll get around to making your driveway a 3di at the next SCOURN meeting, chill

As long as you don't spread misinformation. So get your facts right.

[sprjus4]

Does anyone see US 412 between Interstate 44 and the western terminus of the Cherokee Turnpike being built as a tolled future Interstate (a western extension of the CT) or a non-tolled Interstate? I definitely see the segment east of the Cherokee Turnpike being built as a non-toll road, but am unsure of the other portion. What do you guys think?

That's probably something that'll be hashed around and volleyed back & forth between ODOT and OTA.  Best guess:  I-44 to the western end of the present Cherokee facility would simply be built as a western extension of the Cherokee, since it would tie more or less directly into both the Will Rogers (I-44) and Creek (OK 364) turnpikes at its west terminus, making for a continuous or connected turnpike run (and which may precipitate a 3di/x44 for the Creek).  East of the existing Cherokee would probably be a built as a freeway to placate local Siloam traffic (as well as giving AR drivers ample time to get off & shunpike if they want).  But since the OK "idiom" has been established with I-44: most of it toll except for metro areas, it would probably be deemed acceptable to do so with the new E-W Interstate corridor as well, since to the west it doesn't change to a toll facility until beyond the populated area and to the east a toll facility is expected at some point anyway.  I would imagine Tulsa folks are accustomed to the practice by now!

I would disagree, given US-412 is already a limited access highway, albeit some at grade intersections, between I-44 and the Cherokee. No new facility needs to be built. Some projects to convert the intersections to interchanges will be needed, but no major corridor wide upgrade, like a full new freeway or capturing non-limited-access right of way for frontage roads, etc. It would be pointless to toll an existing facility in this regard.

[Plutonic Panda]

It's so sad Texas can build endless miles of toll free roads and Oklahoma can't do anything besides toll toll toll. If ODOT is smart they'd remove the existing tolls on this portion. God forbid Tulsa gets a toll free interstate.

[Bobby5280]

I strongly doubt Texas is 100% done with building toll roads. They're sure not removing toll gates off any of the tolled express lanes they've built in the last couple of decades. It's also worth pointing out the cost per mile in tolls is a lot higher in Texas than Oklahoma.

That's probably something that'll be hashed around and volleyed back & forth between ODOT and OTA.  Best guess:  I-44 to the western end of the present Cherokee facility would simply be built as a western extension of the Cherokee,...

I think it's much more likely the Cherokee Turnpike will stay as-is and the section of US-412 between I-44 and that turnpike will be turned into a freeway. It will be cheaper to build. As a toll road OTA and ODOT would have to work together to add continuous frontage roads along that new section of super highway in order to maintain a free alternative US highway route. Note: Alt-412 (old US-412) runs alongside the Cherokee Turnpike.

[sparker]

Does anyone see US 412 between Interstate 44 and the western terminus of the Cherokee Turnpike being built as a tolled future Interstate (a western extension of the CT) or a non-tolled Interstate? I definitely see the segment east of the Cherokee Turnpike being built as a non-toll road, but am unsure of the other portion. What do you guys think?

That's probably something that'll be hashed around and volleyed back & forth between ODOT and OTA.  Best guess:  I-44 to the western end of the present Cherokee facility would simply be built as a western extension of the Cherokee, since it would tie more or less directly into both the Will Rogers (I-44) and Creek (OK 364) turnpikes at its west terminus, making for a continuous or connected turnpike run (and which may precipitate a 3di/x44 for the Creek).  East of the existing Cherokee would probably be a built as a freeway to placate local Siloam traffic (as well as giving AR drivers ample time to get off & shunpike if they want).  But since the OK "idiom" has been established with I-44: most of it toll except for metro areas, it would probably be deemed acceptable to do so with the new E-W Interstate corridor as well, since to the west it doesn't change to a toll facility until beyond the populated area and to the east a toll facility is expected at some point anyway.  I would imagine Tulsa folks are accustomed to the practice by now!

I would disagree, given US-412 is already a limited access highway, albeit some at grade intersections, between I-44 and the Cherokee. No new facility needs to be built. Some projects to convert the intersections to interchanges will be needed, but no major corridor wide upgrade, like a full new freeway or capturing non-limited-access right of way for frontage roads, etc. It would be pointless to toll an existing facility in this regard.

Under other circumstances I'd tend to agree with you here, but if this new Interstate corridor is actually legislated (likely appended to the FY '22 USDOT yearly budget request as per previous corridors of this type), it might be considered at the state level as just another federally-specified "unfunded mandate" -- at which point the prospect of offsetting upgrade and/or new construction expenses with tolls might be seriously discussed during the "back & forth" deliberations I mentioned in the prior post.  It'll probably come down to whether the cost of a freeway upgrade from I-44 east to the Cherokee pike would be enough to provoke the toll discussion -- and, of course, whether the modifications necessary to actually deploy a toll facility (with a viable alternative in place as well) would in essence consume any monetary gains accrued by the lengthened toll road.   

It'll be interesting; this will be the first congressionally-designated Interstate corridor in OK -- not counting the now 30-year-old ISTEA appendage that allows ODOT to designate US 69 as an Interstate as far north as I-40, which they've essentially ignored for that period of time*.  Of course, AR already has three such corridors with which to deal (I-49, I-69, and most recently I-57), so they're basically "old hats" at the game.  How normally stingy OK responds will be quite revealing.

*Curiously, that corridor was simply "tacked on" to the ISTEA act (as section #1174), but decidedly not included within the first batch of high priority corridors -- which effectively exempted it from the maximum 80% federal share of development/construction cost that accrues to HPC's; also the codicil that ODOT needs to not only request designation but have the corridor at Interstate standards when doing so puts the ball squarely in the state's court.  Thus it's not a "cookie-cutter" Interstate corridor request like those in TX, NC, and the various other states where the congressional-designation method has been employed.
       

[Scott5114]

The only upgrades I could see taking place to the current turnpikes would be minor safety improvements, like upgraded median barriers, and perhaps some bridge replacements, on the Cimarron Turnpike. The Cimarron is one of the older roads in the turnpike system, and while I'm not familiar with it specifically, other toll roads of that vintage tend to have hilariously obsolete overpasses over the road, some only one lane (not one in each direction, one total!), so I wouldn't be surprised if there's some clearance issues. The current median is paved and has a cable barrier down the middle. I'm not sure if that would pass muster with FHWA, who may require it get a Jersey barrier to be compliant with Interstate standards. I think that the Cherokee is probably pretty close to Interstate standards as-is.

Meanwhile, the ODOT-maintained sections are likely to remain untolled and simply upgraded by that agency, because any sort of tolling would require transferring the road to OTA, and doing so is legally complicated. The only precedent for it was the other way (OTA to ODOT) and was likely only possible because the enabling act for the relevant turnpike explicitly allowed such a transfer. It would probably be easier for ODOT to just upgrade the roads than transfer them–they are mostly four-lane divided and just need interchanges and overpasses; it's no more than MoDOT had to do to upgrade US-71 to I-49 north of Joplin.

There is one other Interstate corridor that has been Congressionally designated in Oklahoma–the Creek Turnpike. Although years after that, the only action on it that the Transportation Commission has made has been to designate it SH-364, so apparently they're not that interested in an Interstate designation.

[Avalanchez71]

What is the safety issues associated with this type of paved should/cable barrier versus a grass median?

[Scott5114]

The narrow grass medians originally built on the Cimarron Turnpike and other turnpikes of that vintage were completely ineffective at preventing cross-over accidents. See GSV, be sure to set history to the 2008 or 2009 captures to view the old median, then compare to present day. The cable barriers are sufficient to stop a lot of crossovers, but when struck require a crew to come out and reset/replace the pylons and retension the cables to restore them to full effectiveness. A Jersey barrier is more expensive but lower maintenance.

In any case, no taxpayer money is spent on upgrades to Oklahoma turnpikes. OTA is fully funded by toll money collected from all of the roads in the turnpike system (the Turner and Will Rogers largely subsidize the other eight turnpikes).

[Avalanchez71]

I am sure some OHP Troopers didn't like the grass median pave over for ticket writing purposes.