Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 29, 2021, 11:20:35 PM
Lots of renumbering and interstate designation extensions coming to central Oklahoma area:
Taken from OKCTalk:
Turnpikes getting Highway Numbers
Item No. 105 - State Highway System Numbering Revisions — Mr. Swift
a) Removal of the SH-152 Designation between JCT I-44/SH-152 and JCT SH-152/John Kilpatrick TP
b) Addition of a new Designation of I-240 to the above section of SH-152, the John Kilpatrick TP, and
the Kickapoo TP
c) Addition of an I-240 Follow Route on portions of I-44 and I-40
d) Addition of a new Designation of SH-4 to the H.E. Bailey Turnpike — Norman Spur
e) Addition of a new Designation of SH-301 to the Chickasaw Turnpike
f) Addition of a new Designation of SH-312 to the Cimarron Turnpike Spur
g) Addition of a new Designation of SH-375 to the Indian Nation Turnpike
QuoteSecretary of Transportation Tim Gatz will update the commission on the next phase of the modernization effort involving three state transportation agencies, ongoing federal funding discussions in U.S. Congress, and proposed state highway numbering designations at Oklahoma turnpike connections.
https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/newsroom/2021/july/august-transportation-commission-meeting-scheduled-for-monday--a.html
I guess if the I-240 designation is applied to the Kickapoo Turnpike that might do away with any chances of a Southern extension down and over to the Norman/Moore area.
Edited to add quote to facilitate splitting topic. -S.]
Oh wow, what the fuck? The SH-3xx numbers make sense but that overgrown I-240 is going to take a lot of getting used to.
(https://i.imgur.com/HspHhK7.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/aNPlcU6.png)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/56/f2/ae/56f2aea7699e861d742faf23ea6d0d14.jpg)
That I-240 extension is just plain goofy. Is it going to have four cardinal directions? Will there be an overlap (follow route in ODOT-speak) with I-40 east of OKC?
Quote from: bugo on July 30, 2021, 02:21:13 AM
That I-240 extension is just plain goofy. Is it going to have four cardinal directions? Will there be an overlap (follow route in ODOT-speak) with I-40 east of OKC?
It does look goofy...not so much as a beltway as it is a belt buckle.
Quote from: bugo on July 30, 2021, 02:21:13 AM
That I-240 extension is just plain goofy. Is it going to have four cardinal directions? Will there be an overlap (follow route in ODOT-speak) with I-40 east of OKC?
A beltway using all four cardinal directions has precedent (I-435 for instance). According to the proposal, there will be an I-40/I-240/US-270/SH-3 concurrency in far east OKC.
Well, I guess if I-240 overlaps the entire Kilpatrick Turnpike that would open the door to extend the I-235 designation North over Broadway extension up to its interchange with the Kilpatrick Turnpike.
Quote from: MapmikeyIt does look goofy...not so much as a beltway as it is a belt buckle.
That's a pretty good, if not hilarious, description.
Quote from: Scott5114According to the proposal, there will be an I-40/I-240/US-270/SH-3 concurrency in far east OKC.
I'm not a big fan of the concurrency. OTOH, that section of future I-40/I-240 on the SE side of OKC did get a fairly decent upgrade recently.
I'm guessing I-44 will also have an overlap with I-240 between the I-35/Kilpatrick interchange and the Kickapoo interchange. That would mean I-44 would have concurrencies with I-240 and I-35 for about 18 miles.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 30, 2021, 10:45:54 AM
Well, I guess if I-240 overlaps the entire Kilpatrick Turnpike that would open the door to extend the I-235 designation North over Broadway extension up to its interchange with the Kilpatrick Turnpike.
Quote from: MapmikeyIt does look goofy...not so much as a beltway as it is a belt buckle.
That's a pretty good, if not hilarious, description.
Quote from: Scott5114According to the proposal, there will be an I-40/I-240/US-270/SH-3 concurrency in far east OKC.
I'm not a big fan of the concurrency. OTOH, that section of future I-40/I-240 on the SE side of OKC did get a fairly decent upgrade recently.
I'm guessing I-44 will also have an overlap with I-240 between the I-35/Kilpatrick interchange and the Kickapoo interchange. That would mean I-44 would have concurrencies with I-240 and I-35 for about 18 miles.
Yup. Here's a link for the actual text of the proposed resolution:
https://www.odot.org/tcomm/agendas21/tc_agenda-202108-r.pdfI don't mind the concurrencies because they'd functionally exist even if they're not signed (an exit to I-240 north, followed a few miles later by an exit to I-240 west is basically a concurrency whether you sign it or not–not signing it is just pretending you're ArDOT). Someone going, e.g. Tulsa to Lawton, or Tulsa to Norman, or Shawnee to Guthrie, might well follow the I-240 route as designated, so the concurrency makes sense.
I hope it won't do away with a potential future N-S extension. Both are needed for future growth.
Fun fact, kurumi says (https://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/long3di.html)...
Quote from: kurumi
The longest full beltway in the U. S. is Interstate 275 encircling Cincinnati.
I-275 is 83.71 miles long.
But Google shows the new I-240 as 91.3 miles.
Interstate beltway?
Because the SH-8 Sam Houston Tollway is around 88 miles long.
But wow... I-240 would grow from a mere 19 miles to 91!
Is that concurrent section of I-240 and I-44 in southwest OKC is going to have a "West I-240" and "East I-44" signs in the same direction at that interchange with SW 59th?
Quote from: will_e_777 on July 31, 2021, 03:31:52 AM
Is that concurrent section of I-240 and I-44 in southwest OKC is going to have a "West I-240" and "East I-44" signs in the same direction at that interchange with SW 59th?
Yeah, probably. (It already has East I-44 and West SH-3 signs.)
Are they really proposing this? This sounds more like a Fictional Highways proposal to me. If the Kickapoo Turnpike and the John Kilpatrick Turnpike were to join the Interstate system, they should have separate designations like 440 or 640.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 31, 2021, 12:10:10 PM
Are they really proposing this? This sounds more like a Fictional Highways proposal to me. If the Kickapoo Turnpike and the John Kilpatrick Turnpike were to join the Interstate system, they should have separate designations like 440 or 640.
Reply #7 has the link to the ODOT meeting agenda for August 2 which really does do this.
I suppose they could always vote 'no' at the actual meeting...
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 31, 2021, 12:10:10 PM
Are they really proposing this? This sounds more like a Fictional Highways proposal to me. If the Kickapoo Turnpike and the John Kilpatrick Turnpike were to join the Interstate system, they should have separate designations like 440 or 640.
I could see the Kilpatrick Turnpike as an I-x44. Though I don't see much of a problem having it as part of I-240 since it does provide a bypass/alternate route for I-40 and it's probably better not to have the number change at the I-40 interchange in Yukon.
IMHO the Kickapoo Turnpike should have been given a separate number in case it does get extended, or a disconnected but nearby facility serving as an extension is ultimately built.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 31, 2021, 12:10:10 PM
Are they really proposing this? This sounds more like a Fictional Highways proposal to me. If the Kickapoo Turnpike and the John Kilpatrick Turnpike were to join the Interstate system, they should have separate designations like 440 or 640.
I could reasonably see the Kilpatrick Turnpike and SH-152 being converted into I-240 to create a 3/4 interstate beltway, but I question the Kickapoo Turnpike being apart of it given the concurrences necessary with I-40 and I-44. It functions more of a connector / bypass route than anything, independent of any Oklahoma City beltway.
I guess this is one way for there to be exit numbers and mile markers that make more sense on the Kilpatrick and Kickapoo turnpikes... but this was totally unexpected.
The Kickapoo can still be extended southward and knowing ODOT they would make it part of I-240. It would be like Indiana's former I-465 routing except longer.
Yeah, the first thing I did when I saw this proposal was to look at the calendar and make sure it wasn't the first day of April. This whole proposal is just silly, If they ended it at the Kilpatrick/I-35/I-44 interchange, it would be fine, but making the Kilpatrick part of it borders on the absurd, and the overlaps with I-40 and I-44 are awkward and pointless. It's like they are trying way too hard. Extend the current I-240 along I-44, OK 152 and the Kilpatrick to end at the I-35/44 split. The Kickapoo could be I-140, 640, OK 340 or they could even resurrect the old I-440 designation. No x44 designations in OKC because Tulsa might need them in the future. Whoever came up with this boneheaded idea must have stopped by the dispensary on the way to work and bought one of those 1000mg candy bars and gobbled it down. That's the only rational explanation.
Quote from: bugo on July 31, 2021, 03:26:38 PM
Whoever came up with this boneheaded idea must have stopped by the dispensary on the way to work and bought one of those 1000mg candy bars and gobbled it down. That's the only rational explanation.
I tried to draw a sign panel while high just to see if it would explain ODOT's tendencies. It took me an hour and a half to lay out an EXIT ONLY panel, but it came out to KDOT spec, so I'm not 100% sure we can blame cannabis for anything they do.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 31, 2021, 04:53:39 PM
I tried to draw a sign panel while high just to see if it would explain ODOT's tendencies. It took me an hour and a half to lay out an EXIT ONLY panel, but it came out to KDOT spec, so I'm not 100% sure we can blame cannabis for anything they do.
You have to take the full 1000mg to make it work. You have to take so much that you're doubled over in misery before it kicks in hard enough to design signs in the styles of ODOT and OTA. To put that in perspective, I have a fairly high tolerance, and 100mg is about the sweet spot. 150mg has me feeling a bit uncomfortable. The recommended dose for first time patients is 5-10mg. 1000mg would make me very, very sick for about 12 hours. And being that sick is a good reason to design signs like the two agencies do.
Let's see how long before Google maps, Bing Maps, Open Street Maps, Apple Maps and even Mapquest will jump the gun and put I-240 markers on Kilpatrick Tpk.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 30, 2021, 10:45:54 AM
Well, I guess if I-240 overlaps the entire Kilpatrick Turnpike that would open the door to extend the I-235 designation North over Broadway extension up to its interchange with the Kilpatrick Turnpike.
This is an excellent point, one that I hadn't considered. Is this stretch of US 77 up to I-standards? I can't remember if I've ever driven it or not.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 31, 2021, 12:25:23 PM
I could see the Kilpatrick Turnpike as an I-x44. Though I don't see much of a problem having it as part of I-240 since it does provide a bypass/alternate route for I-40 and its probably better not to have the number change at the I-40 interchange in Yukon.
No. No x44s outside of Tulsa. There is only one 2 digit Interstate in Tulsa, and they may need some of those x44 numbers for future interstates. The Kick-a-poo Turnpike intersects I-40, so make it an x40. Definitely no x44s in Oklahoma City, because they have 3 2 digit Interstates to work with. If ODOT and the OTA decided to make the Gilcrease Turnpike/Expressway I-644 and the Creek Turnpike I-844, they're suddenly out of even 2 digit Interstates. Wasting x44s in Oklahoma City is a bad idea.
The only other place I could see an x44 is in Lawton.
Slightly off-topic but I checked Streetview showing some stubs on Kilpatrick Tpk/Future I-240 showing a stub at the exit ramp for 29th St SW. https://goo.gl/maps/ySvW5yAfchCEpWhb7 Did they plan to add service roads in the future?
Quote from: bugo on July 31, 2021, 07:53:37 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 30, 2021, 10:45:54 AM
Well, I guess if I-240 overlaps the entire Kilpatrick Turnpike that would open the door to extend the I-235 designation North over Broadway extension up to its interchange with the Kilpatrick Turnpike.
This is an excellent point, one that I hadn't considered. Is this stretch of US 77 up to I-standards? I can't remember if I've ever driven it or not.
It is, to the lay roadgeek's eye, at least. Could be non-compliant with some fiddly bits like shoulder widths or something like that, but I'm not aware of any glaring deficiencies.
Quote from: bugo on July 31, 2021, 07:58:52 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 31, 2021, 12:25:23 PM
I could see the Kilpatrick Turnpike as an I-x44. Though I don't see much of a problem having it as part of I-240 since it does provide a bypass/alternate route for I-40 and its probably better not to have the number change at the I-40 interchange in Yukon.
No. No x44s outside of Tulsa. There is only one 2 digit Interstate in Tulsa, and they may need some of those x44 numbers for future interstates. The Kick-a-poo Turnpike intersects I-40, so make it an x40. Definitely no x44s in Oklahoma City, because they have 3 2 digit Interstates to work with. If ODOT and the OTA decided to make the Gilcrease Turnpike/Expressway I-644 and the Creek Turnpike I-844, they're suddenly out of even 2 digit Interstates. Wasting x44s in Oklahoma City is a bad idea.
The only other place I could see an x44 is in Lawton.
Before this I-240 extension was floated, I remember seeing someone proposing I-144 for the freeway stretch of SH-152. The 144 number would also make sense for the Bailey Spur that they ended up making part of SH-4.
If Tulsa were ever in dire need of even x44s, they could always reassign I-444 to somewhere it would actually be signed. If the IDL really needed a unified unsigned number for internal ODOT purposes, it could be some random three-digit SH number like 222 or something.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on July 31, 2021, 08:02:51 PM
Slightly off-topic but I checked Streetview showing some stubs on Kilpatrick Tpk/Future I-240 showing a stub at the exit ramp for 29th St SW. https://goo.gl/maps/ySvW5yAfchCEpWhb7 Did they plan to add service roads in the future?
I'm not sure what else those could be for. That's weirdly forward-thinking of them.
I'm not generally one for removing freeways but I really think I-444 could be removed entirely and it wouldn't be such a bad thing. Have US-64 serve as a feeder route to downtown from the SE suburbs. Is it really too much to navigate surface streets for less than a mile? That would also free up OkDOT from maintenance.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 31, 2021, 08:31:35 PM
I'm not generally one for removing freeways but I really think I-444 could be removed entirely and it wouldn't be such a bad thing. Have US-64 serve as a feeder route to downtown from the SE suburbs. Is it really too much to navigate surface streets for less than a mile? That would also free up OkDOT from maintenance.
Are you serious? I hope you're joking, but I'm not sure if you are or not. In any event. tearing down I-444 would be a disaster. It would take 15 or 20 minutes on a bad day to get through downtown if you hit the traffic signals wrong (which frequently happens.) There are no good alternatives to I-444, and dumping those nearly 90,000 cars a day from the BA into downtown streets would be a nightmare. I-444 carries right around 50,000 cars a day. Where is that traffic going to go? Even if you were only going to tear down one leg of I-444, you would be dealing with 50,000 extra cars on the northern and western legs of the IDL, which is a dangerous and scary road as it is, which would bring traffic to a halt. If you're joking, then ha ha, but if you're even somewhat serious, this is an absolutely terrible idea.
Quote from: bugo on July 31, 2021, 07:58:52 PM
No. No x44s outside of Tulsa. There is only one 2 digit Interstate in Tulsa, and they may need some of those x44 numbers for future interstates. The Kick-a-poo Turnpike intersects I-40, so make it an x40. Definitely no x44s in Oklahoma City, because they have 3 2 digit Interstates to work with. If ODOT and the OTA decided to make the Gilcrease Turnpike/Expressway I-644 and the Creek Turnpike I-844, they're suddenly out of even 2 digit Interstates. Wasting x44s in Oklahoma City is a bad idea.
If Tulsa really needs more interstates, just upgrade and give the Cimarron Turnpike a 2 digit number and/or a 2 digit number for the Muskogee Turnpike.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 31, 2021, 10:38:56 PM
If Tulsa really needs more interstates, just upgrade and give the Cimarron Turnpike a 2 digit number and/or a 2 digit number for the Muskogee Turnpike.
"Just upgrading" the two turnpikes in question would cost millions and millions of dollars, and wouldn't be a huge benefit to motorists. They are able to handle 80 MPH traffic, but they are not anywhere close to being up to I-standards. Reserving highway numbers for potential future needs wouldn't cost anything. There is zero benefit for an OKC 3 digit Interstate being an x44 rather than an x35 or an x40. Sure, I-45 might eventually be extended through Tulsa, but none of us and none of our children will ever live to see it. Just set the damn numbers aside and forget about it.
Quote from: bugoThis is an excellent point, one that I hadn't considered. Is this stretch of US 77 up to I-standards? I can't remember if I've ever driven it or not.
I'm pretty sure Broadway Extension between I-44 and the Kilpatrick Turnpike is up to Interstate standards. About 20 years ago it went through a complete re-build and expansion. Ramps were improved and wider shoulders were added.
Quote from: bugoThe only other place I could see an x44 is in Lawton.
If they would ever do a proper upgrade of Rogers Lane (which would be very easy) it could be an I-744 or I-944. I'm kind of going by the New York state numbering model with I-90 where the farthest West x90 routes are higher numbers. That would give the Tulsa region I-144 thru I-644 as well as I-844.
Another thing very sorely needed in Lawton is a Southern bypass going from Lawton's West side where there is a great deal of industrial activity (like a gigantic Goodyear tire plant) and down and East to I-44. Such a thing could be started out as a basic Super-2 just to get ROW established, kind of like what ODOT did with the Duncan Bypass. Then they could do upgrades as needed (or as funding comes available). Lee Blvd in Lawton can't withstand all the truck traffic and a couple streets going South of Lawton, such as 82nd Street, are just getting beat completely to hell
and causing a LOT of wear and tear or outright damage to trucks in the process. Goodyear and others have been complaining pretty loudly about it.
As for Oklahoma City and potential 3-digit Interstate routes the OKC metro has LOTS to choose from via I-35 and I-40. OKC doesn't need to go scarfing up I-x44 routes when the metro has two other 2-digit parent Interstate routes to use.
Quote from: bugo on July 31, 2021, 10:00:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 31, 2021, 08:31:35 PM
I'm not generally one for removing freeways but I really think I-444 could be removed entirely and it wouldn't be such a bad thing. Have US-64 serve as a feeder route to downtown from the SE suburbs. Is it really too much to navigate surface streets for less than a mile? That would also free up OkDOT from maintenance.
Are you serious? I hope you're joking, but I'm not sure if you are or not. In any event. tearing down I-444 would be a disaster. It would take 15 or 20 minutes on a bad day to get through downtown if you hit the traffic signals wrong (which frequently happens.) There are no good alternatives to I-444, and dumping those nearly 90,000 cars a day from the BA into downtown streets would be a nightmare. I-444 carries right around 50,000 cars a day. Where is that traffic going to go? Even if you were only going to tear down one leg of I-444, you would be dealing with 50,000 extra cars on the northern and western legs of the IDL, which is a dangerous and scary road as it is, which would bring traffic to a halt. If you're joking, then ha ha, but if you're even somewhat serious, this is an absolutely terrible idea.
Where are those 50,000 cars going? Where do those trips originate? How much longer would it take those trips to use I-244 from the 169? I think it's at least worth looking at. I doubt anywhere close to 50k trips are originating from roads starting from US-169 but maybe I'm wrong I'd like to see the data.
Again, how many of those trips end in downtown? If there aren't massive impacts to people's commutes, why not widen I-244 to 10-12 lanes to handle the additional load? I fail to see why you'd have a knee jerk reaction to what I'm saying. A city of Tulsa's size does need a full freeway loop circling its entire downtown. This is coming from someone is about as pre freeway as it gets. The issue should at least be studied.
Quote from: bugo on July 31, 2021, 10:00:35 PM
In any event. tearing down I-444 would be a disaster. ... There are no good alternatives to I-444, and dumping those nearly 90,000 cars a day from the BA into downtown streets would be a nightmare. I-444 carries right around 50,000 cars a day. Where is that traffic going to go? Even if you were only going to tear down one leg of I-444, you would be dealing with 50,000 extra cars on the northern and western legs of the IDL, which is a dangerous and scary road as it is, which would bring traffic to a halt.
Kind of sounds like the real solution here is to upgrade and expand I-244, if anything, which I would hope would be part of any plan to remove I-444. In fact, they should probably do something like that anyway. The Skelly Drive upgrades last decade made following I-44 through Tulsa actually not a scary pain in the ass, so I-244 could use the same treatment.
Quote from: bugo on July 31, 2021, 11:14:20 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 31, 2021, 10:38:56 PM
If Tulsa really needs more interstates, just upgrade and give the Cimarron Turnpike a 2 digit number and/or a 2 digit number for the Muskogee Turnpike.
"Just upgrading" the two turnpikes in question would cost millions and millions of dollars, and wouldn't be a huge benefit to motorists. They are able to handle 80 MPH traffic, but they are not anywhere close to being up to I-standards.
And yet there's a bill pending in Congress right now to make the Cimarron and Cherokee turnpikes an interstate. Which would open up Tulsa to another source of 3dis, probably x46 or x48s.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 31, 2021, 11:35:21 PM
the 169?
Welp, you're officially more Californian than Oklahoman now, PluPan. :-D
^^^ lol when wrote that I went back over right after I posted to proof read and I caught that. I thought about changing it but I said eh, I'll just leave it and see if anyone notices.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 30, 2021, 12:03:14 AM
Oh wow, what the fuck? The SH-3xx numbers make sense but that overgrown I-240 is going to take a lot of getting used to.
(https://i.imgur.com/HspHhK7.png)
A beltway that's only 5 miles south of downtown, with tons of suburbs even south of there, but also 20 miles east of downtown in farmland? And I thought I-275 here is a terrible example of how to do a beltway, specifically on the west side.
I can see the rationale for extending I-240 west over SH 152 and along the Kilpatrick Turnpike up to I-40. The northwestern loop as I-240, OK, given that I-240 once formed a three-quarter loop in OKC. The overlaps east along I-40 and I-44/Turner Turnpike and the leg along the Kickapoo Turnpike however is superfluous. Looking over the Oklahoma Transportation Commission Meeting Packet, there is one line related to the creation of a full loop for I-240:
QuoteThis item is necessitated to give the traveling public a more definitive loop to follow around the Greater Oklahoma City Area and to better identify the un-numbered Turnpikes.
It is funny how things change over time, as the 1982 AASHTO Application for the elimination of I-240 along the newly designated extension of I-44 specifically cited potential problems with overlapped routes:
QuoteWithin the Oklahoma City area, the extension of I-44 over I-240 creates a myriad of problems related to the signing of duplicate Interstate Routes within an urbanized area.
The problem of duplicate signing and its related confusion to the motoring public warrants the elimination of overlapping routes.
A map of the proposed loop is part of the Transportation Commission Commission Packet (https://www.odot.org/tcomm/agendas21/tc_agenda-202108-r.pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/central/proposed-i-240-loop.png) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/central/proposed-i-240-loop.png)
Having taken some time to come to terms with it and looking at the way some of the system interchanges are constructed, I'm personally fine with the route. That being said, one of the things that gives me pause about this is that most of it is under the jurisdiction of OTA and not ODOT. Now, I don't give a shit about tolls, what bothers me is that, because OTA has historically operated under barrier-based tolling systems, they tend to be very parsimonious with interchange placement.
Case in point, both of the two I-44 overlaps have the same number of interchanges. Look at the green sections on that map just above–that overlap with the Turner Turnpike is a straight shot with only one access point. I feel like that's going to make it hard for this I-240 to function in the way that most cities' beltways do.
Now that OTA is embracing a pay-by-plate approach, they have no real reason to not build more interchanges...other than the fact that they cost money and there's so many of them that would be needed to catch up to the level of access that ODOT usually provides.
It would be far, far more expensive to upgrade I-244 to current Interstate standards than it was to rebuild I-44. The old I-44 alignment was mostly straight and flat. and widing it was fairly easy. I-244 is much more curvy, it crosses over some roads while it crosses under others, has a bunch of left exits that would have to be reconfigured and would generally be a huge pain in the ass to rebuild. Parts of the IDL would have to be completely closed in for extended periods of time. It would easily cost several billion dollars and would take years to complete. All to remove a freeway that serves a real purpose and shouldn't be removed. Even if one or all of the legs of the IDL were to be removed, it wouldn't be a net benefit because it wouldn't really unite two adjascent areas of town. It wouldn't amount to a hill of beans. Leave the IDL and I-444 alone.
I-244 needs upgraded in several spots anyways at the interchange with the left exits. Those are just awful.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 31, 2021, 11:35:21 PM
Where are those 50,000 cars going? Where do those trips originate? How much longer would it take those trips to use I-244 from the 169? I think it's at least worth looking at. I doubt anywhere close to 50k trips are originating from roads starting from US-169 but maybe I'm wrong I'd like to see the data.
Are you really saying that traffic headed from, say, I-44 to downtown on the BA should detour along US 169 and I-244? That would be waaaayyyyy out of the way, and besides I-244 is a terrible road and couldn't handle that much extra traffic.
Quote
Again, how many of those trips end in downtown? If there aren't massive impacts to people's commutes, why not widen I-244 to 10-12 lanes to handle the additional load? I fail to see why you'd have a knee jerk reaction to what I'm saying. A city of Tulsa's size does need a full freeway loop circling its entire downtown. This is coming from someone is about as pre freeway as it gets. The issue should at least be studied.
Making I-244 a 12 lane highway would be a MAJOR undertaking costing tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars. The entire road would have to be rebuilt from scratch and would have to be closed for extended periods of time while they were completely reconstructing the highway. And the ROW isn't wide enough in places, so they would have to seize more land and tear down some houses. Removing parts or all of the IDL would be of little benefit to anybody. The downtown area is kind of separated from the areas around it, and removing the IDL wouldn't bring them together.
Have you ever driven much in Tulsa? If you have, you'd see how vital the IDL is. and how bad I-244 is, and you wouldn't support tearing down a vital freeway link just so a half dozen hipsters won't have to look at that mean old ugly highway. It would do nothing to "reconnect" downtown with the river, because of the distance between the two. Making the BA a spur route running from I-44 that would peter out between Lewis and Utica would be worthless, and the 13th Place/14th Street couplet and Peoria Avenue would be choked with traffic. Making it into a "boulevard" would literally be no benefit to anybody except for the "Fuck Freeways" crowd, who could claim another victory. Despite what you think, I believe the IDL is essential to the Tulsa freeway system, and should absolutely not be town down. It would make the quality of life in Tulsa drop significantly. Leave it there.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 31, 2021, 11:29:08 PM
As for Oklahoma City and potential 3-digit Interstate routes the OKC metro has LOTS to choose from via I-35 and I-40. OKC doesn't need to go scarfing up I-x44 routes when the metro has two other 2-digit parent Interstate routes to use.
That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Thanks for explaining it more eloquently than I did.
I've had time to digest this, and not even I could've dreamt up a route as extravagant as the I-240 loop! I see nothing wrong with the current southern bypass, AFAIK. But if I-240 were to be extended, at least they should consider upgrading US 77 between I-44 and the Kilpatrick Turnpike so that I-235 can meet the loop.
This proposal is the most FritzOwlish thing any DOT could've ever done! Because look:
Quote from: Alex on August 01, 2021, 01:29:04 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/central/proposed-i-240-loop.png) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/central/proposed-i-240-loop.png)
Quote from: Henry on August 02, 2021, 10:32:32 AM
This proposal is the most FritzOwlish thing any DOT could've ever done!
FritzOwl doesn't care about urban beltways. He only cares about turning every US route to an interstate. I-69 in LA/AR/MS and I-74 east of Cincinnati are more FritzOwlish imo.
^ Not really... They are reasonably proposals, IMO. The only problem is funding.
I-240 extension approved by the Transportation Commission, pending approval by AASHTO and FHWA. ODOT Director Tim Gatz said at the meeting that the motivation for the numbering changes is to make navigation using satnavs easier, as well as making it easier "to describe the route on a green and white sign". Also, basically, because other cities have beltways so we wanted one too.
I could see Oklahoma become the next NCDOT in the next few years after this :-D
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 02, 2021, 12:28:01 PM
I could see Oklahoma become the next NCDOT in the next few years after this :-D
NCDOT actually has money.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 02, 2021, 12:28:46 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 02, 2021, 12:28:01 PM
I could see Oklahoma become the next NCDOT in the next few years after this :-D
NCDOT actually has money.
Oklahoma has enough money that their roads are in pretty good shape, which is more than a lot of state DOTs can say. In my experience, if you picked a random state road in Oklahoma and then compared it to one in a state like NM, SC, GA, TN... the Oklahoma one would win almost every time.
Quote from: US 89 on August 02, 2021, 12:34:17 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 02, 2021, 12:28:46 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 02, 2021, 12:28:01 PM
I could see Oklahoma become the next NCDOT in the next few years after this :-D
NCDOT actually has money.
Oklahoma has enough money that their roads are in pretty good shape, which is more than a lot of state DOTs can say. In my experience, if you picked a random state road in Oklahoma and then compared it to one in a state like NM, SC, GA, TN... the Oklahoma one would win almost every time.
You're not wrong, but what I was getting at with my one-liner is that while ODOT can afford to maintain the existing pavement fairly well, they don't have the money to build new freeways at the rate NCDOT does. You might or might not see ODOT apply for a few Interstate highways over existing facilities, but I doubt you're going to see NCDOT-style speculative applications for future interstates which aren't yet built.
I-240 is only possible because of a turnpike bond package that passed during the Fallin administration. Definitely not the way that NCDOT goes about things.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 02, 2021, 12:25:34 PM
I-240 extension approved by the Transportation Commission, pending approval by AASHTO and FHWA.
I wonder what AASHTO/FHWA will really think of this.
Quote from: Tim Gatz, ODOT directorIf you look at the Interstate 240 designation on the loop around the Oklahoma City metropolitan area, we are finally to the point where we have a truly contiguous route there that can shoulder the burden of some of that transportation need in a loop format. That's common practice across the country, and you'll see that in many of the metropolitan areas, and that update will really be beneficial as far as everything from signage to how do you describe that route on a green-and-white sign.
Truly spoken like a man who holds a degree in landscape architecture.
I have a feeling that I-240 would go through some of the same problems I-275 has in terms of functioning like a beltway...
How are mile markers and exit numbering going to work with this scheme? I assume the 'follow' routes will retain their original numbers, and perhaps the discrete portions will be based off the distance from the existing 240 mileage scheme starting at 44/Lawton junction being Exit 1A/MM 0.0.
Quote from: I-35 on August 02, 2021, 02:22:46 PM
How are mile markers and exit numbering going to work with this scheme? I assume the 'follow' routes will retain their original numbers, and perhaps the discrete portions will be based off the distance from the existing 240 mileage scheme starting at 44/Lawton junction being Exit 1A/MM 0.0.
Normally, beltways have the mile markers start at an intersection with an interstate on the south side (in this case, OK 152 and I-44), and increase clockwise. Looks like I-240 may be starting at around the same point, but going clockwise instead so it uses its current exit numbers. In this case, possible exit numbers:
22 - I-40 and Kickapoo
40 - I-44 and Kickapoo
54 - I-35/I-44 and Kilpatrick
63 - OK 77 and Kilpatrick
79 - I-40 and Kilpatrick
90 - I-44 and OK 152
Wikipedia has updated its Interstate 240 (Oklahoma) page to include this monstrosity of a proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_240_(Oklahoma). I could support this proposal with one exception: give the Kickapoo Turnpike another designation. I don't care if its an Interstate or a state highway designation, it should not be part of Interstate 240.
This will be the first instance of a "full beltway" that will have three Interstate overlaps, with two being the same Interstate (I-44)...
Of course I'm using the term "full beltway" loosely in this instance...
Quote from: flaroads on August 02, 2021, 06:41:14 PM
This will be the first instance of a "full beltway" that will have three Interstate overlaps, with two being the same Interstate (I-44)...
Of course I'm using the term "full beltway" loosely in this instance...
So it'll have concurrencies with two interstate designations, which would tie it with I-465 after the I-69 completion up to Indianapolis. Though would the I-465 concurrency with interstates be counted as a single overlap, as it's continuous between I-74's western junction all the way to I-69's northern junction?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 02, 2021, 06:30:08 PM
Wikipedia has updated its Interstate 240 (Oklahoma) page to include this monstrosity of a proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_240_(Oklahoma). I could support this proposal with one exception: give the Kickapoo Turnpike another designation. I don't care if its an Interstate or a state highway designation, it should not be part of Interstate 240.
(https://i.imgur.com/MNd1FsB.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/r23YzCe.png)
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 01, 2021, 09:39:35 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 30, 2021, 12:03:14 AM
Oh wow, what the fuck? The SH-3xx numbers make sense but that overgrown I-240 is going to take a lot of getting used to.
(https://i.imgur.com/HspHhK7.png)
A beltway that's only 5 miles south of downtown, with tons of suburbs even south of there, but also 20 miles east of downtown in farmland? And I thought I-275 here is a terrible example of how to do a beltway, specifically on the west side.
I-240 as a beltway around OKC? Wow. that's new. I don't understand putting I-240 signs up Kickapoo Turnpike. It seems so far away. Is there any ideas why Kickapoo Turnpike didn't start at the I-40/I-240 split and go up? Why was it built like 10 miles east?
Quote from: Strider on August 03, 2021, 12:00:20 AM
I-240 as a beltway around OKC? Wow. that's new. I don't understand putting I-240 signs up Kickapoo Turnpike. It seems so far away. Is there any ideas why Kickapoo Turnpike didn't start at the I-40/I-240 split and go up? Why was it built like 10 miles east?
That would put it uncomfortably close to downtown Choctaw and run it right through downtown Jones. It's only 6 miles east of the current I-40/I-240 junction.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 03, 2021, 12:29:40 AM
Quote from: Strider on August 03, 2021, 12:00:20 AM
I-240 as a beltway around OKC? Wow. that's new. I don't understand putting I-240 signs up Kickapoo Turnpike. It seems so far away. Is there any ideas why Kickapoo Turnpike didn't start at the I-40/I-240 split and go up? Why was it built like 10 miles east?
That would put it uncomfortably close to downtown Choctaw and run it right through downtown Jones. It's only 6 miles east of the current I-40/I-240 junction.
Yeah but it still should have been done, IMHO.
Eh, it depends on what the intended purpose of the road is. If it's to serve as a commuter beltway now, it's too far east. If it's meant to be a commuter beltway for the OKC of a few decades from now, it might be in the right spot. If it's meant to be an OKC bypass route for I-44 traffic, it really doesn't matter where you put it.
If it actually made it down to Highway 9 I'd get a decent amount of use out of it. As it stands, the last time it would have been useful to me, I completely forgot it was there. Whoops.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 03, 2021, 12:45:44 AMIf If If it's meant to be a commuter beltway for the OKC of a few decades from now, it might be in the right spot.
I know this is the third time of me mentioning I-275 in this thread, but if you said that about I-275's west loop, and alignment through Indiana (replacing OKC with Cincinnati of course) 60 years ago, I would be laughing right now, because it would've aged so well.
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 03, 2021, 01:02:36 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 03, 2021, 12:45:44 AMIf If If it's meant to be a commuter beltway for the OKC of a few decades from now, it might be in the right spot.
I know this is the third time of me mentioning I-275 in this thread, but if you said that about I-275's west loop, and alignment through Indiana (replacing OKC with Cincinnati of course) 60 years ago, I would be laughing right now, because it would've aged so well.
Such is the unusually prescient nature of OTA, though–the Creek Turnpike was thought to be built way too far out in the boonies to be of any use to anyone when it was originally surveyed in the late 1980s, and the Cherokee just a rural-interest safety improvement sop. In the 2010s, the Creek had to be widened to accommodate more traffic, and in 2021, the Cherokee was proposed to become part of an interstate because it serves a metro area that barely existed when it was built.
Hey everyone,
First time poster, long time lurker.
I asked this same question back in October of last year on the r/OKC subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/okc/comments/jh96ns/extending_i240/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share I guess someone at ODOT saw it and made it happened.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 01, 2021, 01:47:15 PM
Having taken some time to come to terms with it and looking at the way some of the system interchanges are constructed, I'm personally fine with the route. That being said, one of the things that gives me pause about this is that most of it is under the jurisdiction of OTA and not ODOT. Now, I don't give a shit about tolls, what bothers me is that, because OTA has historically operated under barrier-based tolling systems, they tend to be very parsimonious with interchange placement.
Case in point, both of the two I-44 overlaps have the same number of interchanges. Look at the green sections on that map just above–that overlap with the Turner Turnpike is a straight shot with only one access point. I feel like that's going to make it hard for this I-240 to function in the way that most cities' beltways do.
Now that OTA is embracing a pay-by-plate approach, they have no real reason to not build more interchanges...other than the fact that they cost money and there's so many of them that would be needed to catch up to the level of access that ODOT usually provides.
There's zero reason to add more interchanges on the NE concurrence with I44 at this time. Not enough people out there. You might make a good argument for one at Hiwassee Road but that's about it.
This thing looks like I-435 got turned on its side and became even more fucked up. Maybe if OKC was to really take off in growth and additional freeways become a must, it wouldn't look as bad. But right now those sharp corners just aren't doing anything to help form a "beltway".
Quote from: plain on August 03, 2021, 08:19:54 AM
This thing looks like I-435 got turned on its side and became even more fucked up. Maybe if OKC was to really take off in growth and additional freeways become a must, it wouldn't look as bad. But right now those sharp corners just aren't doing anything to help form a "beltway".
I assume that no construction is regarded as necessary for this renumbering scheme, but it'd be nice if there was a 40 mph flyover ramp in the 240-counterclockwise direction at the north end of the Kickapoo Turnpike as well as the south.
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on August 02, 2021, 01:58:51 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 02, 2021, 12:25:34 PM
I-240 extension approved by the Transportation Commission, pending approval by AASHTO and FHWA.
I wonder what AASHTO/FHWA will really think of this.
I'm sure it will get approved without question. If they proposed a new number, then there might be some doubt...
You would think that the FHWA would still have the same opinion regarding urban area Interstate overlaps as in 1982, when I-240 was truncated instead of cosigned from I-40 south to it's current west end. But now we'll get I-40/240 east to the Kickapoo Tpk, and will it be signed I-240 north at that point?
More recent beltway/loop scenarios discarded the assumption that cardinal direction banners can change along a route without question. Per the logic of NJDOT, I-295 could not change direction banners...so you have I-295 north running southwest into PA; and in Jacksonville you have I-295 North/South but with the East Beltway/West Beltway distinctions. So I-240 changing from east/west to north/south there is not even a given.
Just another case of too much, too soon, considering you'd add at least 75 miles to the current length (from 16 to over 91). And I don't believe that the good folks in Cincinnati will like losing their claim to the longest 3di beltway either.
Quote from: Henry on August 03, 2021, 10:49:11 AM
Just another case of too much, too soon, considering you'd add at least 75 miles to the current length (from 16 to over 91). And I don't believe that the good folks in Cincinnati will like losing their claim to the longest 3di beltway either.
To be fair, I-275 is only about a half mile longer than I-435, so it's not like we have the longest beltway by that much.
Quote from: Henry on August 03, 2021, 10:49:11 AM
Just another case of too much, too soon, considering you'd add at least 75 miles to the current length (from 16 to over 91).
Isn't that what happened to I-476 in the 1990s, when it was expanded from just the Blue Route to the entirety of PA 9?
Quote from: Henry on August 03, 2021, 10:49:11 AM
And I don't believe that the good folks in Cincinnati will like losing their claim to the longest 3di beltway either.
Not sure AASHTO really pays attention to that at all (and their own ability to enforce their directives is limited, i.e. the earlier Oklahoma example of the US 377 extension).
Quote from: Henry on August 03, 2021, 10:49:11 AM
I don't believe that the good folks in Cincinnati will like losing their claim to the longest 3di beltway either.
I have a hard time believing the good folks in Cincinnati have any clue where the longest 3di beltway
is, let alone care.
Quote from: rte66man on August 03, 2021, 06:08:09 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 01, 2021, 01:47:15 PM
Having taken some time to come to terms with it and looking at the way some of the system interchanges are constructed, I'm personally fine with the route. That being said, one of the things that gives me pause about this is that most of it is under the jurisdiction of OTA and not ODOT. Now, I don't give a shit about tolls, what bothers me is that, because OTA has historically operated under barrier-based tolling systems, they tend to be very parsimonious with interchange placement.
Case in point, both of the two I-44 overlaps have the same number of interchanges. Look at the green sections on that map just above–that overlap with the Turner Turnpike is a straight shot with only one access point. I feel like that's going to make it hard for this I-240 to function in the way that most cities' beltways do.
Now that OTA is embracing a pay-by-plate approach, they have no real reason to not build more interchanges...other than the fact that they cost money and there's so many of them that would be needed to catch up to the level of access that ODOT usually provides.
There's zero reason to add more interchanges on the NE concurrence with I44 at this time. Not enough people out there. You might make a good argument for one at Hiwassee Road but that's about it.
There's zero apparent reason for there to be interchanges at Orlando Road, or Mulhall Road, or Methodist Road, or any of the other random county roads that ODOT builds interchanges for... but there
are people that live out in those areas and would find the access helpful, even if it's fewer than the number of people that use a big city or state highway system interchange. I know because I grew up right next to a random Oklahoma county road interchange like the ones I listed.
I'd like to see interchanges at Hiwassee and Memorial/Douglas at the very least. Later on, might be good to add them to Midwest and Post as well.
Extending 240 to 40/Kilpatrick: love it
Extending 240 to 35/44/Kilpatrick: like it
Extending 240 over Kickapoo: don't like it, but I guess I get it.
I'm another person who saw the future of the Kilpatrick as continuing straight south to the Baily Spur and OK 9 over to I-35 and earning I-435 shields when complete. In that scenario, I-240 for sure gets extended west to meet this I-435.
But this real proposal is an okay silver medal, if a little awkward to shoehorn the Kickapoo into this and making a full loop.
I hope AASHTO/FHWA doesn't balk at new interstate shields on existing toll facilities. Because I would like that to be a precedent for adding 3di's to other tollways elsewhere. (Orlando, Dallas, Houston, Denver...)
I'm still hoping for a Kickapoo-to-SH-9-to-SH-4 loop of some kind, sort of like how I-470 is a loop off of the I-435 loop.
Also, I know why a lot of people are suggesting the I-435 number for an outer OKC beltway, but I'd be kind of uncomfortable with using that number. Let Kansas City have that as their beltway; I'd rather bring back the I-440 number, which was actually used in OKC for a portion of what is now I-44 until I believe the 60s.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 03, 2021, 01:19:19 PM
Also, I know why a lot of people are suggesting the I-435 number for an outer OKC beltway
I can think of one special significance of the number 435, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Oklahoma City.
Quote from: 1 on August 03, 2021, 01:45:21 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 03, 2021, 01:19:19 PM
Also, I know why a lot of people are suggesting the I-435 number for an outer OKC beltway
I can think of one special significance of the number 435, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Oklahoma City.
I mentioned I-435 but not as a number for OKC. I was comparing the KC beltway's routing to that of the proposed OKC I-240 extension.
Quote from: Scott5114If it's meant to be an OKC bypass route for I-44 traffic, it really doesn't matter where you put it.
Unless OKC traffic gets really bad in the future I'll just stay on I-44 for trips from Lawton up to the Tulsa area and beyond. The Kickapoo Turnpike doesn't do anything for me in its current configuration.
I'd get more use out of the Kickapoo Turnpike if it extended all the way down to the OK-9 level
AND extended West to the I-35 corridor in the Norman area. It would be even better still if the H.E. Bailey Turnpike extension was properly connected to I-35 by Riverwind Casino (rather than the dopey Breezewood that exists there now). Hell may freeze over before such an upgrade ever happens. It's lunacy how ODOT utterly failed to get ROW secured on the OK-4 and OK-9 corridors that would have made for a far better Southern extension of the Kilpatrick Turnpike. OK-9 going through the South side of Norman is likely in its best possible configuration: a four lane divided street with 11 traffic signaled intersections before one gets East of town.
In that respect, this huge re-naming of I-240 almost seems like an effort to mask over past failures in corridor planning.
Quote from: Strider on August 03, 2021, 12:00:20 AM
I don't understand putting I-240 signs up Kickapoo Turnpike.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 03, 2021, 12:45:44 AM
Eh, it depends on what the intended purpose of the road is. ... If it's meant to be an OKC bypass route for I-44 traffic, it really doesn't matter where you put it.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 03, 2021, 04:30:19 PM
Unless OKC traffic gets really bad in the future I'll just stay on I-44 for trips from Lawton up to the Tulsa area and beyond. The Kickapoo Turnpike doesn't do anything for me in its current configuration.
The stated purpose of the Kickapoo is this:
Quote from: https://www.drivingforwardok.com/northeast-ok-county-loop
This project will allow for a connection from Eastern Oklahoma County to vital intersections for travel. This will produce a drive-time reduction to access Tulsa from the OKC Metro and a needed new loop to alleviate current congested traffic in the Oklahoma City area. Construction will link I-40 and I-44 (Turner Turnpike) in Eastern Oklahoma County.
That reads a lot like
Quote from: Mary FallinI think this is needed.
Quote from: drivingforwardokThis project will allow for a connection from Eastern Oklahoma County to vital intersections for travel. This will produce a drive-time reduction to access Tulsa from the OKC Metro and a needed new loop to alleviate current congested traffic in the Oklahoma City area. Construction will link I-40 and I-44 (Turner Turnpike) in Eastern Oklahoma County.
That P.R. blurb makes me wonder if the people doing corridor planning in Oklahoma understand how to read a map. 20+ years ago ODOT and OTA squandered the opportunity to establish a Yukon/Mustang to Norman corridor for an eventual Kilpatrick Turnpike extension. Now we have this twisty curvy "extension" that merely hooks into Airport Road.
I guess that bit of new road will be decent as an extension of I-240.The Kickapoo Turnpike looks like it will be another missed opportunity. In order for that toll road to properly function as a true regional bypass for OKC the road has to be longer
both North and South. The Southern part needs to go down as far as the OK-9 corridor and then somehow across to I-35. Even if that means going a bit South of Norman to get there. There does appear to be a bit of an open gap between Norman and Noble. The Northern part is extending the Kickapoo Turnpike up and West to I-35 somewhere between Edmond and Guthrie. That's what would make that turnpike far more functional. Throw in a proper H.E. Bailey Extension to I-35 and the turnpike would work better for I-44 traffic. Not until then however.
I don't really like driving on I-240 through OKC all that much. The EB I-44 exit to EB I-240 is not great. And going the other direction, the 25mph cloverleaf ramp really sucks for a freeway to freeway interchange.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 04, 2021, 12:41:03 AM
I don't really like driving on I-240 through OKC all that much. The EB I-44 exit to EB I-240 is not great. And going the other direction, the 25mph cloverleaf ramp really sucks for a freeway to freeway interchange.
Yeah, someone should really do something about that (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3618.msg2275966#msg2275966) ;)
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 04, 2021, 05:03:01 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 04, 2021, 12:41:03 AM
I don't really like driving on I-240 through OKC all that much. The EB I-44 exit to EB I-240 is not great. And going the other direction, the 25mph cloverleaf ramp really sucks for a freeway to freeway interchange.
Yeah, someone should really do something about that (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3618.msg2275966#msg2275966) ;)
I'm going to post that on another website if you don't mind. I'll give you credit. I also would like to email this to OkDOT if you haven't already. This is an amazing interchange design.
Also, what program did you use to design that?
https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/newsroom/2021/august/august-commission-meeting-wrap-up--updated-five-year-plan-for-ma.html (https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/newsroom/2021/august/august-commission-meeting-wrap-up--updated-five-year-plan-for-ma.html)
This afternoon, ODOT issued a press release detailing actions taken at their meeting Monday. The relevant portion of the release to this thread follows:
QuoteThe I-240 designation is one step closer to being added to 75 miles of highways and turnpikes in the Oklahoma City metro area thanks to action by the Oklahoma Transportation Commission at its Monday, Aug. 2 meeting. As part of an item to add highway numbers to several Oklahoma turnpikes, the commission approved designation of the entire John Kilpatrick Turnpike and Kickapoo Turnpike along with segments of SH-152/Airport Rd., I-44 and I-40 as part of I-240, creating a continuous loop around the city.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 04, 2021, 05:36:28 PM
I'm going to post that on another website if you don't mind. I'll give you credit. I also would like to email this to OkDOT if you haven't already. This is an amazing interchange design.
Go for it, man.
And thanks. I should make more, but the desire to doodle interchanges ebbs and flows, you know?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 04, 2021, 05:36:28 PMAlso, what program did you use to design that?
Adobe Illustrator.
After seeing the thread regarding I-235 I noticed something I didn't remember from 40 years ago...namely I-240 used to continue around the west and north of OKC before being replaced by I-44. I only remembered I-240 connecting to I-40 west of OKC and a piece of 240 became I-44.
Anyway, I know there is at least one example of a beltway designation being partly removed, then restored years later on the same highway (I-495 DC). Should the I-240 Belt Buckle become a reality in OKC, will this be the first time a designation has been restored to a loop but on a completely different roadway?
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 09, 2021, 07:08:29 AM
After seeing the thread regarding I-235 I noticed something I didn't remember from 40 years ago...namely I-240 used to continue around the west and north of OKC before being replaced by I-44. I only remembered I-240 connecting to I-40 west of OKC and a piece of 240 became I-44.
I think it was I-440 that was replaced by I-44, not I-240.
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 09, 2021, 10:30:33 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 09, 2021, 07:08:29 AM
After seeing the thread regarding I-235 I noticed something I didn't remember from 40 years ago...namely I-240 used to continue around the west and north of OKC before being replaced by I-44. I only remembered I-240 connecting to I-40 west of OKC and a piece of 240 became I-44.
I think it was I-440 that was replaced by I-44, not I-240.
Wasn't I-440 renumbered as a 240 extension before 44 ever got extended through OKC?
I-440 was replaced by an extended I-240 in 1976.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 09, 2021, 07:08:29 AM
Anyway, I know there is at least one example of a beltway designation being partly removed, then restored years later on the same highway (I-495 DC). Should the I-240 Belt Buckle become a reality in OKC, will this be the first time a designation has been restored to a loop but on a completely different roadway?
I-280 in the Bay Area kinda fits this but doesn't:
- the northern portion in SF is not the original 1950s planned alignment (which would have paralleled Route 1/19th Avenue along the Junipero Serra Freeway that would have served as I-80's terminus in Golden Gate Park, before ending at a shared terminus with I-480 at today's Route 1/US 101 junction in the Presidio). Instead, 280 in 1968 was rerouted along 1950s-1964 US 101 (1964-1968 Route 82) and the north segment of the otherwise nixed San Jose-SF portion of Route 87, for a planned but ultimately also-cancelled terminus with I-80 at the 80/480 interchange.
- The southern terminus was always at I-680 numerically, but 1950s-1965 this was actually today's I-880/US 101 junction! 1965 was when the extensions of 680 and 280 (along what had been proposed from 1963-1964 as a Route 17 realignment) into Alum Rock and downtown San Jose respectively were codified.
Could even argue the same thing happened with I-680:
- original terminus from the 1950s to 1976 was at I-80 in Vallejo
- from 1976 onwards, 680's terminus remains with I-80 - but now further northeast in the Cordelia area of Fairfield, along what had been former Route 21 (and parallel to a 1930s alignment of US 40).
210 in eastern Los Angeles County and all of San Bernardino County almost counts for this, but the segment east of Route 57 has not been signed as Interstate and the submissions to AASHTO for that were already 22-23 years ago and not followed up on.
---
Specific to Oklahoma's I-240...the portion of road on the southwest corner between I-44 and SH 152 would essentially be re-added to the route after being absent from it for 39 years! Now that alone is interesting enough as one of the side effects of this wider loop concept.
Quote from: bugo on August 09, 2021, 10:38:06 AM
I-440 was replaced by an extended I-240 in 1976.
And then I-240 was replaced by I-44 in 1982.
Quote from: JMoses24 on August 04, 2021, 05:56:07 PM
https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/newsroom/2021/august/august-commission-meeting-wrap-up--updated-five-year-plan-for-ma.html (https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/newsroom/2021/august/august-commission-meeting-wrap-up--updated-five-year-plan-for-ma.html)
This afternoon, ODOT issued a press release detailing actions taken at their meeting Monday. The relevant portion of the release to this thread follows:
QuoteThe I-240 designation is one step closer to being added to 75 miles of highways and turnpikes in the Oklahoma City metro area thanks to action by the Oklahoma Transportation Commission at its Monday, Aug. 2 meeting. As part of an item to add highway numbers to several Oklahoma turnpikes, the commission approved designation of the entire John Kilpatrick Turnpike and Kickapoo Turnpike along with segments of SH-152/Airport Rd., I-44 and I-40 as part of I-240, creating a continuous loop around the city.
"Main Route" and "Follow Route" -- that's the first time I've heard those terms applied to a multiplex. Anyone know if that terminology has migrated out of OK? Also -- is there any timetable for building the Kilpatrick extension down to 152?
Quote from: sparker on August 10, 2021, 05:58:05 PM
Quote from: JMoses24 on August 04, 2021, 05:56:07 PM
https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/newsroom/2021/august/august-commission-meeting-wrap-up--updated-five-year-plan-for-ma.html (https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/newsroom/2021/august/august-commission-meeting-wrap-up--updated-five-year-plan-for-ma.html)
This afternoon, ODOT issued a press release detailing actions taken at their meeting Monday. The relevant portion of the release to this thread follows:
QuoteThe I-240 designation is one step closer to being added to 75 miles of highways and turnpikes in the Oklahoma City metro area thanks to action by the Oklahoma Transportation Commission at its Monday, Aug. 2 meeting. As part of an item to add highway numbers to several Oklahoma turnpikes, the commission approved designation of the entire John Kilpatrick Turnpike and Kickapoo Turnpike along with segments of SH-152/Airport Rd., I-44 and I-40 as part of I-240, creating a continuous loop around the city.
"Main Route" and "Follow Route" -- that's the first time I've heard those terms applied to a multiplex. Anyone know if that terminology has migrated out of OK? Also -- is there any timetable for building the Kilpatrick extension down to 152?
I think it probably comes from '90s ODOT signage practices–"US-77 NORTH/FOLLOW I-35", for example.
The Kilpatrick extension opened in early 2020.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 30, 2021, 08:28:49 AM
Quote from: bugo on July 30, 2021, 02:21:13 AM
That I-240 extension is just plain goofy. Is it going to have four cardinal directions? Will there be an overlap (follow route in ODOT-speak) with I-40 east of OKC?
A beltway using all four cardinal directions has precedent (I-435 for instance). According to the proposal, there will be an I-40/I-240/US-270/SH-3 concurrency in far east OKC.
And there's I-465 around Indianapolis and I-285 around Atlanta, and let's not forget the Capital Beltway (I-495, but should be I-666 :D) to name a few full beltways around cities that use all 4 cardinal directions.
Quote from: JMoses24 on August 04, 2021, 05:56:07 PM
https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/newsroom/2021/august/august-commission-meeting-wrap-up--updated-five-year-plan-for-ma.html (https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/newsroom/2021/august/august-commission-meeting-wrap-up--updated-five-year-plan-for-ma.html)
This afternoon, ODOT issued a press release detailing actions taken at their meeting Monday. The relevant portion of the release to this thread follows:
QuoteThe I-240 designation is one step closer to being added to 75 miles of highways and turnpikes in the Oklahoma City metro area thanks to action by the Oklahoma Transportation Commission at its Monday, Aug. 2 meeting. As part of an item to add highway numbers to several Oklahoma turnpikes, the commission approved designation of the entire John Kilpatrick Turnpike and Kickapoo Turnpike along with segments of SH-152/Airport Rd., I-44 and I-40 as part of I-240, creating a continuous loop around the city.
I would still think that extending the I-240 designation as ODOT proposes would require Congressional approval since interstate highways are generally not allowed to be tolled, save for the turnpikes that existed when the interstate highway system was created that were designated as interstates but allowed to continue collecting tolls.
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 10, 2021, 08:40:12 PM
Quote from: JMoses24 on August 04, 2021, 05:56:07 PM
https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/newsroom/2021/august/august-commission-meeting-wrap-up--updated-five-year-plan-for-ma.html (https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/newsroom/2021/august/august-commission-meeting-wrap-up--updated-five-year-plan-for-ma.html)
This afternoon, ODOT issued a press release detailing actions taken at their meeting Monday. The relevant portion of the release to this thread follows:
QuoteThe I-240 designation is one step closer to being added to 75 miles of highways and turnpikes in the Oklahoma City metro area thanks to action by the Oklahoma Transportation Commission at its Monday, Aug. 2 meeting. As part of an item to add highway numbers to several Oklahoma turnpikes, the commission approved designation of the entire John Kilpatrick Turnpike and Kickapoo Turnpike along with segments of SH-152/Airport Rd., I-44 and I-40 as part of I-240, creating a continuous loop around the city.
I would still think that extending the I-240 designation as ODOT proposes would require Congressional approval since interstate highways are generally not allowed to be tolled, save for the turnpikes that existed when the interstate highway system was created that were designated as interstates but allowed to continue collecting tolls.
As long as the turnpikes weren't built with federal funds they should be okay to be designated as interstates. The only real roadblock I could see is how janky of an alignment this extension would follow. I think if ODOT wanted it to just cover the Kilpatrick and end at the 35/44 split there would be no objections. Adding the Kickapoo just seems too convoluted, and I agree with Scott that the Kickapoo should be a part of a different route extending down to Norman.
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 10, 2021, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 30, 2021, 08:28:49 AM
Quote from: bugo on July 30, 2021, 02:21:13 AM
That I-240 extension is just plain goofy. Is it going to have four cardinal directions? Will there be an overlap (follow route in ODOT-speak) with I-40 east of OKC?
A beltway using all four cardinal directions has precedent (I-435 for instance). According to the proposal, there will be an I-40/I-240/US-270/SH-3 concurrency in far east OKC.
And there's I-465 around Indianapolis and I-285 around Atlanta, and let's not forget the Capital Beltway (I-495, but should be I-666 :D) to name a few full beltways around cities that use all 4 cardinal directions.
I-410 and I-610 in Texas
Quote from: I-55 on August 10, 2021, 08:45:31 PM
The only real roadblock I could see is how janky of an alignment this extension would follow.
I-69 says hi :(
Quote from: yakra on August 10, 2021, 09:36:29 PM
Quote from: I-55 on August 10, 2021, 08:45:31 PM
The only real roadblock I could see is how janky of an alignment this extension would follow.
I-69 says hi :(
I-74 east of Cincinnati also says hi :)
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 10, 2021, 09:44:09 PM
Quote from: yakra on August 10, 2021, 09:36:29 PM
Quote from: I-55 on August 10, 2021, 08:45:31 PM
The only real roadblock I could see is how janky of an alignment this extension would follow.
I-69 says hi :(
I-74 east of Cincinnati also says hi :)
I-14 says hi
Quote from: I-55 on August 10, 2021, 08:45:31 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 10, 2021, 08:40:12 PM
Quote from: JMoses24 on August 04, 2021, 05:56:07 PM
https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/newsroom/2021/august/august-commission-meeting-wrap-up--updated-five-year-plan-for-ma.html (https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/newsroom/2021/august/august-commission-meeting-wrap-up--updated-five-year-plan-for-ma.html)
This afternoon, ODOT issued a press release detailing actions taken at their meeting Monday. The relevant portion of the release to this thread follows:
QuoteThe I-240 designation is one step closer to being added to 75 miles of highways and turnpikes in the Oklahoma City metro area thanks to action by the Oklahoma Transportation Commission at its Monday, Aug. 2 meeting. As part of an item to add highway numbers to several Oklahoma turnpikes, the commission approved designation of the entire John Kilpatrick Turnpike and Kickapoo Turnpike along with segments of SH-152/Airport Rd., I-44 and I-40 as part of I-240, creating a continuous loop around the city.
I would still think that extending the I-240 designation as ODOT proposes would require Congressional approval since interstate highways are generally not allowed to be tolled, save for the turnpikes that existed when the interstate highway system was created that were designated as interstates but allowed to continue collecting tolls.
As long as the turnpikes weren't built with federal funds they should be okay to be designated as interstates. The only real roadblock I could see is how janky of an alignment this extension would follow. I think if ODOT wanted it to just cover the Kilpatrick and end at the 35/44 split there would be no objections. Adding the Kickapoo just seems too convoluted, and I agree with Scott that the Kickapoo should be a part of a different route extending down to Norman.
Generally agree with all of the above. The 240 designation is appropriate as a loop from 35/44 counterclockwise around the western and southern parts of town to end at the current 240/40. A routing such as this would mean that 240 would have its own corridor, with only a small bit of multiplexing I-44 near the airport. No need for the multiplex with 40 in the southeast or the very long multiplex with 44 in the northeast.
I also agree that the Kickapoo is too far away to be considered part of the same 240 beltway. It needs its own unique number.
To the extent that it would be problematic to have interstate designation on the toll sections, perhaps a state route that is numbered the same as the interstate would work. So OK-240 for the toll parts and I-240 for the free parts.
THe use of control cities would be very helpful for guiding traffic around the area. Clockwise from 40, I'd prefer Amarillo/Dallas as a hint that the route can be used as a bypass of 40, as well as a connector to I-35 south. Then, continuing along use Amarillo or Airport/Amarillo around the southside until hitting I-40 and then the control should be Witchita/Tulsa. In the other direction, the main control from 35/44 should be Amarillo until hitting I-40, then the control should be Fort Smith/Dallas and then after passing I-35, just Fort Smith.
The problem with using an OK-240 is that OTC has gone to great pains to establish "OK-3xx" = "turnpike" with all of their recent turnpike state highway designations (although everyone is sort of pretending OK-325 doesn't exist, for the moment at least). All of the state highway numbers assigned to turnpikes follow this convention: 301, 312, 344, 351, 364, 375.
But I don't really see how it would be problematic for there to be an interstate designation on a toll road anyway. I-44 is already assigned over three different turnpikes, and US-412 over two of them, so it's not like Oklahomans have an expectation that a non-state-highway will always be free.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 16, 2021, 03:58:47 PM
The problem with using an OK-240 is that OTC has gone to great pains to establish "OK-3xx" = "turnpike" with all of their recent turnpike state highway designations (although everyone is sort of pretending OK-325 doesn't exist, for the moment at least). All of the state highway numbers assigned to turnpikes follow this convention: 301, 312, 344, 351, 364, 375.
SH 325 is far enough away that nobody in OKC gives a shit about it (or even knows it's there). Which is a shame because it's a great drive.
At this point, why not renumber it to 456 to match the highway it connects to in NM? I'm pretty sure that route is numbered 325 to begin with because the New Mexico side used to be NM 325, but NM realigned their routes at some point to make 325 a loop off 64.
Are Tulsa and St Louis the only city pair that are shown as control cities of each other, and have a same numbered 3 digit state route freeway (in this case, 364)? I'm not sure where the 364 for Tulsa's came from (probably just to match the 3xx for turnpikes pattern Scott mentioned above), but St Louis's 364 is intended as a state route signed like a 3di of I-64.
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 16, 2021, 05:18:53 PM
Are Tulsa and St Louis the only city pair that are shown as control cities of each other, and have a same numbered 3 digit state route freeway (in this case, 364)? I'm not sure where the 364 for Tulsa's came from (probably just to match the 3xx for turnpikes pattern Scott mentioned above), but St Louis's 364 is intended as a state route signed like a 3di of I-64.
OK 364 meets US 64 on the SE side of Tulsa. Don't know if US 64 is the reason for the OK 364 moniker. But I found it interesting.
Quote from: US 89 on August 16, 2021, 05:11:48 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 16, 2021, 03:58:47 PM
The problem with using an OK-240 is that OTC has gone to great pains to establish "OK-3xx" = "turnpike" with all of their recent turnpike state highway designations (although everyone is sort of pretending OK-325 doesn't exist, for the moment at least). All of the state highway numbers assigned to turnpikes follow this convention: 301, 312, 344, 351, 364, 375.
SH 325 is far enough away that nobody in OKC gives a shit about it (or even knows it's there). Which is a shame because it's a great drive.
At this point, why not renumber it to 456 to match the highway it connects to in NM? I'm pretty sure that route is numbered 325 to begin with because the New Mexico side used to be NM 325, but NM realigned their routes at some point to make 325 a loop off 64.
Exactly my thinking on it as well. And yes, it was numbered after NM 325. Before that, it was OK-134. They could bring that number back if for some reason they didn't want it to be OK-456. 456 would be the highest number in the OK system by far; the current highest is 375, and before the turnpikes started getting numbers, it was...325.
Quote from: skluth on August 16, 2021, 05:59:42 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 16, 2021, 05:18:53 PM
Are Tulsa and St Louis the only city pair that are shown as control cities of each other, and have a same numbered 3 digit state route freeway (in this case, 364)? I'm not sure where the 364 for Tulsa's came from (probably just to match the 3xx for turnpikes pattern Scott mentioned above), but St Louis's 364 is intended as a state route signed like a 3di of I-64.
OK 364 meets US 64 on the SE side of Tulsa. Don't know if US 64 is the reason for the OK 364 moniker. But I found it interesting.
All of the 3xx turnpike numbers reference a highway the route intersects. 301 ends at OK-1, 312 ends at US-412, 344 will end at I-44 (when it's built), 351 parallels OK-51 for a while, 375 intersects US-75.
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 16, 2021, 05:18:53 PM
Are Tulsa and St Louis the only city pair that are shown as control cities of each other, and have a same numbered 3 digit state route freeway (in this case, 364)? I'm not sure where the 364 for Tulsa's came from (probably just to match the 3xx for turnpikes pattern Scott mentioned above), but St Louis's 364 is intended as a state route signed like a 3di of I-64.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the eastbound I-44 control city from Tulsa is Joplin.
Quote from: US 89 on August 16, 2021, 11:02:50 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 16, 2021, 05:18:53 PM
Are Tulsa and St Louis the only city pair that are shown as control cities of each other, and have a same numbered 3 digit state route freeway (in this case, 364)? I'm not sure where the 364 for Tulsa's came from (probably just to match the 3xx for turnpikes pattern Scott mentioned above), but St Louis's 364 is intended as a state route signed like a 3di of I-64.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the eastbound I-44 control city from Tulsa is Joplin.
True, but from the St Louis end, it's Tulsa. (Later, after you leave the St Louis area, Rolla, Springfield, and Joplin start to appear.)
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 17, 2021, 01:48:46 AM
Quote from: US 89 on August 16, 2021, 11:02:50 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 16, 2021, 05:18:53 PM
Are Tulsa and St Louis the only city pair that are shown as control cities of each other, and have a same numbered 3 digit state route freeway (in this case, 364)? I'm not sure where the 364 for Tulsa's came from (probably just to match the 3xx for turnpikes pattern Scott mentioned above), but St Louis's 364 is intended as a state route signed like a 3di of I-64.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the eastbound I-44 control city from Tulsa is Joplin.
True, but from the St Louis end, it's Tulsa. (Later, after you leave the St Louis area, Rolla, Springfield, and Joplin start to appear.)
I know that, but he did say "control cities of each other" which I took to mean each city was the main control from the other. Maybe that wasn't what he meant... and now I've started yet another discussion of control cities. Whoops.
Quote from: US 89 on August 17, 2021, 11:10:28 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 17, 2021, 01:48:46 AM
Quote from: US 89 on August 16, 2021, 11:02:50 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 16, 2021, 05:18:53 PM
Are Tulsa and St Louis the only city pair that are shown as control cities of each other, and have a same numbered 3 digit state route freeway (in this case, 364)? I'm not sure where the 364 for Tulsa's came from (probably just to match the 3xx for turnpikes pattern Scott mentioned above), but St Louis's 364 is intended as a state route signed like a 3di of I-64.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the eastbound I-44 control city from Tulsa is Joplin.
True, but from the St Louis end, it's Tulsa. (Later, after you leave the St Louis area, Rolla, Springfield, and Joplin start to appear.)
I know that, but he did say "control cities of each other" which I took to mean each city was the main control from the other. Maybe that wasn't what he meant... and now I've started yet another discussion of control cities. Whoops.
I thought St Louis was signed in Tulsa somewhere, but I guess not. I didn't know how else to describe two sort of close cities linked by a single 2di with a same numbered 3 digit state route, so I just used control cities.
There should St. Louis signed in Tulsa on I-44. Joplin, Springfield, and St. Louis.
I think it's sort of silly to sign St Louis as far away as Tulsa. If you think Joplin is too small, use Springfield, which is the third-largest city in MO and more than worthy of control city status.
As I've said in other threads, I suspect the only reason I-44 WB is signed as Tulsa in St Louis is to avoid any confusion between Springfield MO and Springfield IL.
all three should be signed, IMO. I don't see why there should only be one city for a control.
Message loading, for one thing. Once you get the control cities from the other direction there, you're liable to wind up with a sign reading I-44/Will Rogers Turnpike/Joplin/Springfield/St. Louis/Tulsa/Okla. City/Lawton.
^ At major junctions. controls like St. Louis should be used, IMO.
Tulsa is used in St. Louis.
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 17, 2021, 11:13:26 AM
I thought St Louis was signed in Tulsa somewhere, but I guess not. I didn't know how else to describe two sort of close cities linked by a single 2di with a same numbered 3 digit state route, so I just used control cities.
There are no signs in Tulsa that use St Louis as a control city that I am aware of.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 17, 2021, 06:53:51 PM
I think it's sort of silly to sign St Louis as far away as Tulsa. If you think Joplin is too small, use Springfield, which is the third-largest city in MO and more than worthy of control city status.
As I've said in other threads, I suspect the only reason I-44 WB is signed as Tulsa in St Louis is to avoid any confusion between Springfield MO and Springfield IL.
Joplin should be used in both cities.
Joplin = 50,000 population
St. Louis metro population = 3 million
The cities are only 400 miles apart.
I think those numbers speak for themselves. Clearly Missouri had it right here.
Did I just start another control cities debate from simply mentioning the two words? :-D
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 18, 2021, 10:23:01 AM
Joplin = 50,000 population
St. Louis metro population = 3 million
The cities are only 400 miles apart.
I think those numbers speak for themselves. Clearly Missouri had it right here.
Joplin MSA is 180,000. Seems reasonable enough to me.
Chris
Still far less significant and notable as St. Louis. Particularly for a long distance traveler.
List Joplin and Springfield as secondary cities, but St. Louis and Tulsa should be the primary control city, and in areas where only one fits, just the primary should be shown.
Springfield is the third-largest city in Missouri and has an MSA of 470,000. Skipping over it or using it as a secondary control (which isn't something Oklahoma actually does for the most part) would be silly.
The reasons I'd go with Joplin over Springfield are that [1] it's well known in logistics (a lot of trucking companies have operations there), [2] it's at the junction of US-71/I-49 (jumping-off point for NB traffic to KC, SB traffic to NWA), [3] it cannot be confused with the capital of Illinois, and [4] it's still the fifth-largest town in Missouri that isn't a suburb of either KC or Saint Louis.
Right, I wasn't trying to imply skipping Joplin was necessarily a good idea, but if you're going to skip Joplin, skipping Springfield too is just silliness. The bad thing about skipping Joplin is also that Springfield could be confused with Springdale (AR), which might be confusing once Tulsa has an interstate link to that city.
On the other hand, several times I've been on a road trip in southwest MO and texted someone back home in OK that I was passing through Joplin, only to get a response of "where is that?" so maybe Joplin isn't as well known as roadgeeks think it is.
It seems to me that using Tulsa in St. Louis would be like using Springfield in OKC.
Springfield is plenty big enough and plenty far away from Tulsa to warrant control city status (and I also agree that Joplin should be used, especially north/eastbound).
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 18, 2021, 03:02:30 PM
On the other hand, several times I've been on a road trip in southwest MO and texted someone back home in OK that I was passing through Joplin, only to get a response of "where is that?" ...
I suspect that sort of person wouldn't find
any specific information about your location useful. The only thing they'd understand would be "225 miles to go".
(My dad once called me when I was driving from KC to Wichita, he asked where we were, and I replied that we were in the four-letter creek stretch. He knew what I meant.
(1 (https://goo.gl/maps/1UHEEfmMFq3MY6Vn6) 2 (https://goo.gl/maps/A95Wjh2kboXysEXn7) 3 (https://goo.gl/maps/Ez8awWnVfggbdoA96) 4 (https://goo.gl/maps/VX12TpW8jf9hhT426)) )
I wonder how the exits will be numbered once Interstate 240 is a full beltway. Where will Mile 0 be, the same place it is now? On the other hand, I will be glad to see the goofy exit numbers on the Kickapoo Turnpike be eliminated (numbering them 130-149 was not my cup of tea).
Quote from: webny99 on August 18, 2021, 03:09:03 PM
It seems to me that using Tulsa in St. Louis would be like using Springfield in OKC.
Springfield is plenty big enough and plenty far away from Tulsa to warrant control city status (and I also agree that Joplin should be used, especially north/eastbound).
That is ridiculous comparison and you know that. Using STL, a city with a metropolitan pop of 3+ million is nothing like OKC using Springfield skipping over a Tulsa a city that has a million in metro's population.
I, for one, do not side with using St Louis as a control city on Eastbound I-44 as far away as Tulsa. Joplin is good enough there. Joplin may not be a major city like St Louis, but it is the next significant intersection in the highway network. That's the real point of control cities on big green signs.
I understand the context of using Tulsa at the beginning of I-44 in St Louis. But that's really an exception to control city protocol on signs across much of the Interstate system. Really, they could have listed Joplin or even Rolla and it would have been consistent with most control city usage elsewhere.
At major intersections with I-40 in Oklahoma City the control cities are Fort Smith for EB I-40 and Amarillo for WB I-40. Little Rock and Memphis are much larger cities than Fort Smith. But Fort Smith is a big enough town on a big enough intersection in the highway network. It's a long drive between OKC and Amarillo, but Amarillo is the WB control city for I-40 in OKC because there are no significant intersections in between.
I see the same treatment on I-25 in Colorado and Northern New Mexico. Pueblo, Trinidad, Raton, Las Vegas and Santa Fe are all control cities between Albuquerque and Colorado Springs.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 18, 2021, 11:16:52 PM
I, for one, do not side with using St Louis as a control city on Eastbound I-44 as far away as Tulsa. Joplin is good enough there. Joplin may not be a major city like St Louis, but it is the next significant intersection in the highway network. That's the real point of control cities on big green signs.
I understand the context of using Tulsa at the beginning of I-44 in St Louis. But that's really an exception to control city protocol on signs across much of the Interstate system. Really, they could have listed Joplin or even Rolla and it would have been consistent with most control city usage elsewhere.
At major intersections with I-40 in Oklahoma City the control cities are Fort Smith for EB I-40 and Amarillo for WB I-40. Little Rock and Memphis are much larger cities than Fort Smith. But Fort Smith is a big enough town on a big enough intersection in the highway network. It's a long drive between OKC and Amarillo, but Amarillo is the WB control city for I-40 in OKC because there are no significant intersections in between.
I see the same treatment on I-25 in Colorado and Northern New Mexico. Pueblo, Trinidad, Raton, Las Vegas and Santa Fe are all control cities between Albuquerque and Colorado Springs.
I used to think that about I-35 north out of Austin using Waco. When I was a kid, Waco was nothing, but now I think it justifies being a control city.
^ Given Dallas-Fort Worth is within 100 miles... I would strongly disagree.
Yes, Waco is a big city, but it's far smaller and not even comparable to a metropolitan area of 7.7 million.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 19, 2021, 07:32:09 PM
^ Given Dallas-Fort Worth is within 100 miles... I would strongly disagree.
Yes, Waco is a big city, but it's far smaller and not even comparable to a metropolitan area of 7.7 million.
What do you think about Waco as a control city heading south from D/FW?
Quote from: kphoger on August 19, 2021, 08:02:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 19, 2021, 07:32:09 PM
^ Given Dallas-Fort Worth is within 100 miles... I would strongly disagree.
Yes, Waco is a big city, but it's far smaller and not even comparable to a metropolitan area of 7.7 million.
What do you think about Waco as a control city heading south from D/FW?
I would just use it as a secondary control both ways.
Quote from: sprjus4Yes, Waco is a big city, but it's far smaller and not even comparable to a metropolitan area of 7.7 million.
Again, control cities aren't about population as much as they are intersection points in the highway network. In the case of Waco, it's an important junction point for traffic moving from Fort Worth down to either Houston or Austin.
If it was all about listing only the biggest cities on the signs that could be a slippery slope. We could end up with something ridiculous like San Antonio being listed as the control city for I-10 Eastbound going out of Phoenix.
Cuz Tucson, Las Cruces, El Paso and any other control cities in use in between are just too small.
^ Horrible comparison. You're talking about cities much further away, as opposed to Waco which is within a 100 miles of the DFW metro.
Not to mention, DFW is a far major junction of interstate highways, I-20, I-30, I-35, and I-45 that is of importance to the system overall. Waco... not really.
Engineers, DOTs, etc.: Let's discuss alternatives based upon engineering merit or political feasibility.
AARoads: Control cities are the most important aspects of our transportation infrastructure!
Quote from: sprjus4Not to mention, DFW is a far major junction of interstate highways, I-20, I-30, I-35, and I-45 that is of importance to the system overall. Waco... not really.
TX-6 between Waco and Houston is a pretty important corridor within the Texas Triangle. Many people going through Fort Worth heading to Houston will often take I-35 to the TX-6 turn-off at Waco as an alternative to using I-45. That's a big reason why Waco gets control city status on I-35 signs.
Quote from: RothmanAARoads: Control cities are the most important aspects of our transportation infrastructure!
Not that any of it matters. We see the practices of how control cities are signed in the field. Any arguments in this forum will do zero to change that.
Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2021, 12:51:51 PM
Engineers, DOTs, etc.: Let's discuss alternatives based upon engineering merit or political feasibility.
AARoads: Control cities are the most important aspects of our transportation infrastructure!
I was going to post something extremely similar to this a couple hours ago and decided not to. It is funny.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2021, 01:01:18 PM
TX-6 between Waco and Houston is a pretty important corridor within the Texas Triangle. Many people going through Fort Worth heading to Houston will often take I-35 to the TX-6 turn-off at Waco as an alternative to using I-45. That's a big reason why Waco gets control city status on I-35 signs.
Not saying it's not... but I find it hard to believe it's a "bigger" junction than DFW.
How is Waco relevant in this case heading north from San Antonio or Austin?
It's not about listing only the most gigantic of highway junctions either. Lots of different highways cross I-35 between DFW and Austin. I already mentioned TX-6 crossing I-35 in Waco. US-84 crosses I-35 there too. US-77 merges/splits with I-35 in Waco. It's a legitimately big enough junction to rate control city status on big green signs -which is why TX DOT has already been doing that.
How, exactly, did Waco end up in 'Central States'? ......
Quote from: kphoger on August 23, 2021, 01:41:38 PM
How, exactly, did Waco end up in 'Central States'? ......
Quote from: kphoger on August 19, 2021, 08:02:30 PM
What do you think about Waco as a control city heading south from D/FW?
Oh, that's right, it grew out of a conversation about what to sign in Saint Louis...
Control city sealioning...
I just realized something while driving I-40 in Oklahoma yesterday: The mid point of the entire route of I-40 is mile 214.925 in Oklahoma. I-40 spawns I-240 at mile marker 165. So if you are driving east to west, you are seeing all these children of I-40 along the way, then you get to the halfway point, then just 49.925 miles later, I-40 spawns it's last child. Basically it spends almost exactly half of it's life childless. The intersection of I-235 and I-40 just 13.1 miles west of I-40 and I-240 is the last time I-40 will ever encounter a 3di of any kind!
There is nothing west of significance in Oklahoma from Oklahoma City. Then it goes into Texas, a state who is 3di stingy. Then it goes through the only 2 contiguous states with no 3dis. Then goes through a very unpopulated part of California.
Now this is all subject to change a little after I-240 is routed completely around Oklahoma City, but still amazing to think of.
I got to be honest, when I first saw this proposal I thought it be pretty cool OKC would have one of the longest beltways. But given the circumstances, I'm liking this proposal less and less every time I think about it...
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 31, 2021, 02:45:04 PM
I thought it be pretty cool OKC would have one of the longest beltways. But given the circumstances, I'm liking this proposal less and less every time I think about it
That's the same thought I had when I found out that I-275 is the longest interstate beltway in the country. Though I'm disliking it nowadays for going too far out west, not being a functional bypass for I-75, and it's only barely better as a bypass for I-71.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 31, 2021, 02:45:04 PM
I got to be honest, when I first saw this proposal I thought it be pretty cool OKC would have one of the longest beltways. But given the circumstances, I'm liking this proposal less and less every time I think about it...
IMO, the Interstate designation -- and the concept of a complete loop -- is pointless given the convoluted configuration of what's being proposed. It's certainly not
developmental in nature -- at least in terms of trying to promote commercial and/or housing along its length -- since most of the sections to receive I-240 signage that aren't presently signed traverse areas that already feature considerable exurban development, particularly in the case of the Kilpatrick. While the Kickapoo section is less dense, there is still plenty of large-lot housing along its length. But, frankly, it's not likely that anyone will utilize it as a full beltway; the usage pattern of any segment of the new and improved I-240 is unlikely to change as a result of the signage. It seems like a regional "vanity" concept -- OKC now can boast that it has a beltway like "big league" cities -- even if it's more like "Frankenbeltway" than anything!
^^^^ I'd much prefer the Kickapoo be signed as x35 when it can be extended to the north and south one day. No reason to jump the gun either as far as signage.
One proposal could be to sign the Kilpatrick as I-44 all the way to a new connection to SH-4 in Mustang. This would be a new freeway built from SH-4 at S.W. 89th north to the new Kilpatrick extension. Build SH-4 to interstate standards all the way to existing I-44 and redesign the interchanges to keep the mainline in tact.
That would create a new seamless connection if I-44 all the way from I-35 near Edmond to I-44 near Bridge Creek. Extend SH-74 south to H.E. Bailey Norman Spur and end it there. I don't know what to sign the HE Bailey Spur or the section of I-44 from SH-74 to I-35. Extend I-235 North to I-44(currently Kilpatrick). It removes a concurrency as well.
Again, sign the Kickapoo as I-635 when it is extended north and south to I-35.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2021, 12:16:20 AM
That would create a new seamless connection if I-44 all the way from I-35 near Edmond to I-44 near Bridge Creek. Extend SH-74 south to H.E. Bailey Norman Spur and end it there. I don't know what to sign the HE Bailey Spur or the section of I-44 from SH-74 to I-35. Extend I-235 North to I-44(currently Kilpatrick). It removes a concurrency as well.
You couldn't extend SH-74 there, because at that point it would conflict with the
other SH-74, which is in McClain County (the two were connected before the Interstate system was built). That would probably be better off as a 3di of some kind.
If you're not going to make the Bailey spur SH-4, the options are 304, 309, 376, or an I-x44.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 29, 2021, 11:20:35 PM
d) Addition of a new Designation of SH-4 to the H.E. Bailey Turnpike — Norman Spur
;)
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2021, 12:16:20 AM
I don't know what to sign ... the section of I-44 from SH-74 to I-35.
Slap an I-644 or I-844 on it?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2021, 12:16:20 AM
Extend I-235 North to I-44(currently Kilpatrick). It removes a concurrency as well.
This adds some more I-235/US77 concurrency. Don't know if you're referring to the 235 extension or your proposal overall, but what concurrency would be removed?
Quote from: yakra on September 02, 2021, 12:24:37 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 29, 2021, 11:20:35 PM
d) Addition of a new Designation of SH-4 to the H.E. Bailey Turnpike — Norman Spur
;)
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2021, 12:16:20 AM
I don't know what to sign ... the section of I-44 from SH-74 to I-35.
Slap an I-644 or I-844 on it?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2021, 12:16:20 AM
Extend I-235 North to I-44(currently Kilpatrick). It removes a concurrency as well.
This adds some more I-235/US77 concurrency. Don't know if you're referring to the 235 extension or your proposal overall, but what concurrency would be removed?
I didn't word that last one very well. I meant it removes the I-44/I-35 concurrency.
So...how quickly is I-240 going to be signed as the approved beltway again?
Quote from: Rothman on November 07, 2021, 05:47:59 PM
So...how quickly is I-240 going to be signed as the approved beltway again?
As far as I know, it's still pending AASHTO/FHWA approval. I don't know whether it was submitted at the last AASHTO meeting or not. The other designations approved at the beginning of August were signed in mid-October, so figure 2½ months from the date that FHWA gives the go-ahead, I guess?
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 07, 2021, 08:02:37 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 07, 2021, 05:47:59 PM
So...how quickly is I-240 going to be signed as the approved beltway again?
As far as I know, it's still pending AASHTO/FHWA approval. I don't know whether it was submitted at the last AASHTO meeting or not. The other designations approved at the beginning of August were signed in mid-October, so figure 2½ months from the date that FHWA gives the go-ahead, I guess?
Ah, okay. I must have misread somewhere that approval was somehow mixed in with the infrastructure bill.
Quote from: Rothman on November 07, 2021, 08:42:38 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 07, 2021, 08:02:37 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 07, 2021, 05:47:59 PM
So...how quickly is I-240 going to be signed as the approved beltway again?
As far as I know, it's still pending AASHTO/FHWA approval. I don't know whether it was submitted at the last AASHTO meeting or not. The other designations approved at the beginning of August were signed in mid-October, so figure 2½ months from the date that FHWA gives the go-ahead, I guess?
Ah, okay. I must have misread somewhere that approval was somehow mixed in with the infrastructure bill.
You may be thinking of I-46/I-48/whatever the US-412 upgrade will become, which indeed ended up as part of the infrastructure bill.
General procedure for highway designations in Oklahoma is vote of the Transportation Commission → AASHTO → FHWA (with the last two steps, of course, only being needed for US and Interstate designations; for state designations the Transportation Commission approval is all that's needed to start running off meat cleavers). Presumably I-46/I-48/whatever will follow the same track.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2021, 12:16:20 AM
^^^^ I'd much prefer the Kickapoo be signed as x35 when it can be extended to the north and south one day. No reason to jump the gun either as far as signage.
One proposal could be to sign the Kilpatrick as I-44 all the way to a new connection to SH-4 in Mustang. This would be a new freeway built from SH-4 at S.W. 89th north to the new Kilpatrick extension. Build SH-4 to interstate standards all the way to existing I-44 and redesign the interchanges to keep the mainline in tact.
SH-4 zig-zags in Mustang, turning east to concur with SH-152, then south again at Sara Road. If you eliminated that zig-zag to build SH-4 to interstate standard now, you'd have to bulldoze half of the central business strip of Mustang to avoid having it come in at too sharp an angle to the Kilpatrick. So that won't work.
Quote from: JMoses24 on December 04, 2021, 01:16:50 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2021, 12:16:20 AM
^^^^ I'd much prefer the Kickapoo be signed as x35 when it can be extended to the north and south one day. No reason to jump the gun either as far as signage.
One proposal could be to sign the Kilpatrick as I-44 all the way to a new connection to SH-4 in Mustang. This would be a new freeway built from SH-4 at S.W. 89th north to the new Kilpatrick extension. Build SH-4 to interstate standards all the way to existing I-44 and redesign the interchanges to keep the mainline in tact.
SH-4 zig-zags in Mustang, turning east to concur with SH-152, then south again at Sara Road. If you eliminated that zig-zag to build SH-4 to interstate standard now, you'd have to bulldoze half of the central business strip of Mustang to avoid having it come in at too sharp an angle to the Kilpatrick. So that won't work.
I need to draw a map of what I'm thinking. My proposal would turn slightly east at 89th st behind the Oklahoma National Guard center and then snake it's way to connect to the Kilpatrick turnpike. Regionally I don't see how growth doesn't choke itself in this area if this isn't done.
If it isn't and an entire new bypass of Mustang is done and connected up at I-40 at some point we will have a terrible system.
20 years ago ODOT and OTA could have upgraded OK-4/S Sara Road to Interstate standards from I-44 up through Mustang to I-40 if they hadn't farted around. I think an upgrade is still theoretically possible from I-44 to the new Kilpatrick extension. But it would indeed involve taking some properties along a column a couple or so blocks East of the Walmart and OK National Guard Recruiting Center in Mustang and just to the West of Morgan Road. A bunch of the houses in there are older.
If ODOT/OTA worked out sweet enough deals for the existing property owners it might make it possible for a new freeway (or toll road) to go through there and be flanked by a lot of new housing. It looks like there is enough room for a "Y" interchange to be built between the Sara Road exit and Morgan Road exit on the Kilpatrick turnpike extension, right in that 90 degree bend it takes going over SW 44th Street. But ODOT or OTA can't fart around for years like they've done in the past. If they want anything like that to happen they have to act soon.
They need to act very soon I agree and the chances of them doing so? It's very interesting OKC has a very good freeway network making me think that a great deal of planning went into it. So what changed why does Oklahoma do virtually little to no planning in regards to freeways nowadays?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2021, 12:13:28 AM
They need to act very soon I agree and the chances of them doing so? It's very interesting OKC has a very good freeway network making me think that a great deal of planning went into it. So what changed why does Oklahoma do virtually little to no planning in regards to freeways nowadays?
A good chunk of the planning of OKC's freeway network was done by BPR. Once Nixon changed things to a block-grant model and got the feds out of the planning business, well, that was the end of OKC's planning.
Of course, when OKC tried planning on its own without BPR's help, we got the Pei Plan. So maybe it's better that they don't even make an attempt at it anymore...
Thanks for information I'll look more into that block grant funding I don't know much about it.
To be fair, has the Pei Plan been implemented it would have been pretty cool but the city bailed halfway into it, after tearing down many buildings.
It's basically the way things are done today: FHWA has a formula they dole the transportation money out with; the states choose what to spend it on. The only federal direction as to what gets built where comes in the form of random U.S. Senators popping out of the woods to demand X road gets built.
The Pei Plan might have been neat, but I think it still would have foundered in the 80s during the economic downturn that OKC experienced due to the savings & loan crisis and the oil bust. A lot of what did end up getting built ended up being vastly underutilized until MAPS. About the only thing that came out of the Pei Plan that actually turned out well is the Myriad Gardens, and those probably could have been located somewhere that wasn't the site of a historic hotel.
Quote from: Plutonic PandaThey need to act very soon I agree and the chances of them doing so?
The chances of ODOT/OTA being able to connect the H.E. Bailey Turnpike Extension to the Kilpatrick Turnpike extension along or near OK-4 are next to none currently.
I think the powers that be within the OKC area and the state government are just going to sit back and do nothing until traffic along the OK-4 corridor, S Sara Road and OK-152 is bad enough they start getting their asses chewed. Then they might conjure up the inspiration to fill in the gaps along OK-4 between the Kilpatrick and H.E. Bailey Turnpikes. But by then it will be too late. Right now there is still a fair amount of open land along and near the Kilpatrick extension to Airport Road going downward toward to Walmart Supercenter in Mustang. In another 5 years much of that open land is going to be filled in with housing developments.
I even think a bunch of the older homes North of the Walmart are going to be cleared and replaced by newer homes in brand new developments. In those kinds of deals it would be possible for ODOT/OTA and the City of Mustang to include a turnpike corridor in those plans. It's a long shot any state officials could be that
smart and forward thinking, given the current political climate in the state. Toll roads are not popular,
even if our toll rates are a bargain compared to most other toll roads. The only thing that seems to gain any traction is figuring new schemes to dole out tax cuts and
eliminate wasteful spending.Has any officials in Mustang or Yukon even pushed the idea of connecting the Kilpatrick Turnpike and H.E. Bailey Turnpike? I rarely ever drive through those areas. That might be different with a better highway going through there. Some of my friends live up in Edmond, but I always just stay on I-44 and either take Hefner Parkway (OK-74) or Broadway Extension (US-77) to go there. If I had an Interstate quality path thru Mustang to get to the Kilpatrick Turnpike I might use that instead.
The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is developing a 15-year plan for turnpike expansions and improvements. Paywalled story https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2021/12/08/proposed-oklahoma-highway-plan-to-add-small-town-connections/6413454001/ (https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2021/12/08/proposed-oklahoma-highway-plan-to-add-small-town-connections/6413454001/)
Among things considered - a connection between the Kickapoo and Kilpatrick Turnpikes S of OKC (!), 6-laning the rest of the Turner, and additional exits on existing turnpikes.
Quote from: okc1 on December 08, 2021, 08:33:27 AM
The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is developing a 15-year plan for turnpike expansions and improvements. Paywalled story https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2021/12/08/proposed-oklahoma-highway-plan-to-add-small-town-connections/6413454001/ (https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2021/12/08/proposed-oklahoma-highway-plan-to-add-small-town-connections/6413454001/)
Among things considered - a connection between the Kickapoo and Kilpatrick Turnpikes S of OKC (!), 6-laning the rest of the Turner, and additional exits on existing turnpikes.
Paywall circumvention link: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2021/12/08/proposed-oklahoma-highway-plan-to-add-small-town-connections/6413454001
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 08, 2021, 12:44:45 PM
Paywall circumvention link: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2021/12/08/proposed-oklahoma-highway-plan-to-add-small-town-connections/6413454001
McAlester Turnpike hahaha
Quote from: bugo on December 08, 2021, 02:30:00 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 08, 2021, 12:44:45 PM
Paywall circumvention link: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2021/12/08/proposed-oklahoma-highway-plan-to-add-small-town-connections/6413454001
McAlester Turnpike hahaha
What do you expect? It's the Jokelahoman. And they want you to
pay for this tripe.
Also, another quote from Tim Gatz, who I am starting to love hearing from:
QuoteTurnpike commissioners supported Gatz' proposal, which he called "the beginning of the beginning."
Once again, truly spoken like a man who holds a degree in landscape architecture.
A $5 billion plan with very little to cause any excitement. Sounds like some widening projects for existing toll roads in the OKC and Tulsa areas is the bulk of the plan. There's nothing in there to complement the overall larger national highway network.
Bringing the number of interchanges up to being on par with the rest of the Interstate System is a nice quality-of-life improvement, though.
I can't tell from that article what they have in mind for upgrading interchanges. So far it looks like the addition of a clover leaf ramp here and there. Big whoop for that.
Some of the stuff they mention, like improving I-44 at Newcastle, would actually be an ODOT project, not OTA. I wouldn't mind seeing I-44 widened to 3 lanes in each direction thru the US-62 and OK-37 exits 107 & 108. The I-44 bridge across the Canadian River already has a road bed wide enough for 6 lanes plus shoulders.
QuoteNew interchanges will be added along the Turner and Will Rogers turnpikes, including connections to Chandler and Stroud. The Will Rogers Turnpike, meanwhile, could see additional connections in Rogers County.
The way that's phrased seems to me like they're adding new interchanges where there weren't any before, although looking at the map I can't see any obvious places for new interchanges in Chandler and Stroud.
An excellent place to add a new interchange would be at I-44/SH-76/SH-130 in Newcastle, because any path to that spot from I-44 is kind of circuitous.
A new turnpike exit by the intersection with OK-76/OK-130 in Newcastle would be nice. That would set it right next to the Newcastle Baseball/Softball complex. The on/off ramps to Council Ave would have to be fairly snug to the main lanes due to the businesses on the SW corner of the I-44/Council intersection. There is already one sort of exit ramp there already, an access road off Council to a turnpike maintenance shed.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 08, 2021, 03:02:56 PM
A $5 billion plan with very little to cause any excitement. Sounds like some widening projects for existing toll roads in the OKC and Tulsa areas is the bulk of the plan. There's nothing in there to complement the overall larger national highway network.
It does sound as if they might extend the Kilpatrick south as I had suggested through Mustang and upgrade the rest of SH-9/SH-4 to a freeway to I-35. How else could the Kilpatrick be connected to I-35? Color me a tad skeptical this can all be done for 5 billion. They also mentioned upgrades to I-35 and I-44 in OKC.
This could potentially be very excited or just more or less meh they're doing what the bare minimum should be.
IMO they also need to extend the Kickapoo Turnpike north to I-35. SH-74 should also be upgraded to a freeway to Waterloo and curve east to connect to I-35. Also complete the interchange at SH-74 and Hefner Parkway.
I must have missed the part where they suggested a Southern extension of the Kilpatrick Turnpike down thru Mustang. From the looks of it the Kilpatrick is all done, but with its Southern leg diverted over to Airport Road. Further extensions of the H.E. Bailey Turnpike Extension,
going farther at both ends, East along OK-9 to I-35 and North along OK-4 up thru Mustang, would be something worth a bit of excitement.
QuoteIMO they also need to extend the Kickapoo Turnpike north to I-35. SH-74 should also be upgraded to a freeway to Waterloo and curve east to connect to I-35. Also complete the interchange at SH-74 and Hefner Parkway.
Agreed on all those. Except the Kickapoo Turnpike needs to be extended
both North and South. The initial setup is only going to be of value to locals on the East side of the OKC metro,
even if it gets signed as I-240. Really the thing ought to extend down and then Westward to I-35 in or South of Norman. And the Kickapoo Turnpike should connect into I-35 on the North side of the OKC metro too. Then it could be a proper I-35 bypass around the East side of OKC. If a Southern extension of the Kickapoo Turnpike were to connect to the H.E. Bailey Turnpike extension South of Norman that would actually make the turnpike function as a proper I-44 bypass of OKC. If the OTA is going to spend $5 billion on turnpike upgrades they ought to do something these ideas a reality.
Honestly, the best they could do is just end it so that it defaults onto SH-9 westbound toward Norman. Put the pressure on ODOT to upgrade SH-9 between there and I-35–it needs to be done anyway. Building something parallel to it but further south might be cheaper, but East Norman is growing like weeds, so traffic is going to keep growing on SH-9 no matter what. May as well put the money into what's needed now instead of building something that will only reach peak usefulness decades from now.
Am I the only one skeptical though that they can get all of this done for 5 billion
It depends on how long they take to build the projects in this plan. The plan doesn't appear very ambitious to me. It's not like there is a bunch of new turnpike mileage getting built or elaborate, show piece things like directional stack interchanges. The plan seems to be mostly widening projects to add a lane along a specific stretch or a new ramp here or there. $5 billion should be able to cover that -if they don't piddle around and let price inflation kill their project budgets.
Quote from: Scott5114Honestly, the best they could do is just end it so that it defaults onto SH-9 westbound toward Norman. Put the pressure on ODOT to upgrade SH-9 between there and I-35–it needs to be done anyway. Building something parallel to it but further south might be cheaper, but East Norman is growing like weeds, so traffic is going to keep growing on SH-9 no matter what.
I agree OK-9 needs to be upgraded to limited access. But it would not be easy or without controversy. The signaled intersections with 24th Ave SW, McGee Drive, Imhoff Road, Berry Road and Chautauqua Ave don't have a lot of available space for on/off ramps. And there certainly isn't enough room to add frontage roads. A 3x3 configuration with some tightly spaced slip ramps might be possible. But at least a couple of those intersections served with traffic signals would have to be cut off in a freeway configuration. There are more ROW issues farther East.
Really, OK-9 thru the South side of Norman needs to be upgraded to limited access regardless of where a Southern extension of the Kickapoo Turnpike was routed. If anything, the Kickapoo Turnpike should be routed around the South side of Norman and hook into I-35 just South of the Riverwind Casino complex. A new OK-9 freeway could be built from I-35 and go Eastward and end at the Kickapoo Turnpike. In a perfect world with enough funding that's probably what would happen.
What controversy would there possibly be? The only thing that the East Side and West Side can agree on is that Highway 9 in its current configuration sucks. Hating on Highway 9 is as much of a Norman tradition as OU football and the Denco Darlin. You'd maybe get some complaints from the people who are directly affected by property takings, but they'd be shouted down by everyone else who has ever had to drive on the damn thing. Any protest could be nipped in the bud by spinning it as benefiting the university (which it would). Maybe OU could chip in a token sum to show how important it is to them.
McGee and Berry both connect to Imhoff, so you could just put an interchange at Imhoff, grade-separate McGee, and close Berry.
I think the main controversy would be blow-back from home-owners who live next to the existing OK-9 highway. Several kinds of complaints are possible or even likely from that group. Obviously they would have worries about their property values being negatively affected. A new OK-9 freeway could be built mostly at grade, but it would have to be elevated over all the intersections I mentioned along with at least several others. Nearby home owners may not like the visual looks of that. Not every intersection along OK-9 currently served with a traffic signal can get its own freeway exit. I'm certain home owners whose intersection gets leap-frogged without any ramps would raise a stink about their access being "cut off" (even if all they have to do is drive another block to get on OK-9). A construction project to upgrade OK-9 into a freeway would be pretty disruptive. The traffic situation along OK-9 already sucks. A freeway construction project would make it worse for at least a couple or so years. Some people wouldn't have the stomach to put up with that even if the end result made things far better.
Then there's the general possibility of the usual anti-roads crowd rising up to block things. We live in a very politically "red" region, but Norman is a college town. And I'm certain there are at least a few people who would be screaming that we need to build more bicycle paths rather than a freeway that would help vastly improve traffic movement within the Central Oklahoma region. There are also conservative types who just don't want to spend any more money on roads than they have to. This state has a long history of being pretty cheap at it.
While Norman is liberal, it isn't really that particular flavor of liberal. Norman residents are pretty clear-eyed that our transit options aren't currently sufficient to allow someone to live a successful life here without having a car, and so road improvements are something that are generally politically popular. There is no seriously-considered contingent here, as there is in Austin, that favors the elimination or scaling down of major roads. And unlike much of the rest of the state, the citizenry is actually pretty accepting of taxes, and has voted in the past in municipal referendums to raise them to support road improvements.
If the locals in Norman would be accepting of a OK-9 freeway conversion ODOT needs to develop some kind of game plan to make it happen (if they don't already have some plans in development). I have the feeling this kind of project would be something they would have to tackle in at least two or three phases, if not just one intersection at a time. Here in Lawton I'd be happy if they could work on Rogers Lane one intersection at a time, starting with 38th Street.
The first traffic-signaled intersection East of I-35, 24th Avenue SW, would be a very tricky one to upgrade. But that intersection is quite a traffic bottleneck. Any new freeway main lanes would have to be built over the existing surface street there since there is no room for new ramps. It's either that or several properties next to the intersection, such as Total Beverage Services, would have to be removed. Even with enough space the existing I-35/OK-9 interchange would have to be seriously reconfigured to work in addition ramps, even braided style ramps. Really, I'm kind of wondering why ODOT didn't address the 24th Ave SW/OK-9 intersection back when they did the big I-35 upgrade project in Norman.
Grade separations of McGee Drive, Imhoff Road, Berry, Chautauqua Avenue and Jenkins Ave would be easier. With the right plan those 5 could be completed in one phase, maybe one half of the road at a time. Getting those 5 intersections upgraded along with the bigger issue at 24th Ave would greatly ease the burden of traffic moving between I-35 and places like Lloyd Noble Center. OK-9 should be an 3x3 Interstate quality facility between I-35 and Classen Blvd bare minimum.
↑ Totally agreed with you there. Chautauqua and Jenkins may be a little trickier than they look on the map, though, as the empty space to the south of SH-9 is actually a nature preserve that I believe is managed by OU and is used to conduct research. The really interesting intersection is 12th Avenue SE, which my instincts say to just close and provide access through Cedar Lane Road, but there is a ton of traffic that heads south from SH-9 there to the newish housing additions near its intersection Cedar Lane Road. I would say the easternmost interchange that should be constructed should be at 24th Avenue SE (the other 24th Avenue, not the one near I-35); Norman Regional Hospital is building a branch hospital at that intersection, and an interchange would be useful there to keep the ambulances from having to try to time gaps across 50 MPH oncoming traffic.
It's four miles from I-35 to Classen Av on OK 9. This doesn't leave much room for interchanges unless you want a freeway where all the interchanges are too close like the Madison Beltline (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15321.0). (I used to live in Madison. You don't want that.) Marshall Av is a problem as the commercial properties north of OK 9 there can only be accessed via OK 9 or the winding streets of the subdivision to their east; it will either need its own interchange or an access road to 12th Av SE. I agree Chautauqua would be tricky for an interchange, but Jenkins looks to have room for ramps on the NW and SW corners. I have no problems with new homeowners being slightly inconvenienced and using Cedar Lane Road rather than their current easier access at 12th Av SE as freeways by definition have limited access.
Quote from: yakra on September 02, 2021, 12:24:37 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2021, 12:16:20 AM
I don't know what to sign ... the section of I-44 from SH-74 to I-35.
Slap an I-644 or I-844 on it?
No. OKC has 3 interstates to choose from, Tulsa just has one. Tulsa might need those numbers one day. This road can be I-435.
You'll have x46s soon enough.
Quote from: Scott5114The really interesting intersection is 12th Avenue SE, which my instincts say to just close and provide access through Cedar Lane Road, but there is a ton of traffic that heads south from SH-9 there to the newish housing additions near its intersection Cedar Lane Road.
Based on the configuration of the ramps for OK-9 to Classen Blvd (to the East of the intersection) ODOT might be able to fit in slip ramps for 12th Ave SE. But that intersection with Marshall Ave nearby would have to be connected with some kind of frontage road setup. Maybe a 2-way street parallel to the OK-9 freeway.
Quote from: skluthIt's four miles from I-35 to Classen Av on OK 9. This doesn't leave much room for interchanges unless you want a freeway where all the interchanges are too close like the Madison Beltline.
That's why some of the intersections currently serviced with traffic signals would have to be passed over without any ramps. There isn't enough room off to the sides to accommodate space-saving features like braided ramps. If the highway between I-35 and Classen Blvd could be built as a mostly elevated freeway it would provide more design flexibility in the design of on/off ramps. Elevated freeways typically meet with one hell of a lot of resistance.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 08, 2021, 11:31:04 PM
IMO they also need to extend the Kickapoo Turnpike north to I-35. SH-74 should also be upgraded to a freeway to Waterloo and curve east to connect to I-35. Also complete the interchange at SH-74 and Hefner Parkway.
The Kickpapoo tpk could also extend south to I-35 to give a eastern north-south bypass of OKC for I-35 travellers.
I-44/Bailey Tpk could desserve more interchanges like the proposed US-81 bypass of Chickasha, US-277/OK-19 and OK-76 at Newcastle as that article mentioned.
Just build OK-9 in a trench with cantilevered frontage roads, like a more compact version of 35 in S. OKC.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on December 12, 2021, 03:00:31 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 08, 2021, 11:31:04 PM
IMO they also need to extend the Kickapoo Turnpike north to I-35. SH-74 should also be upgraded to a freeway to Waterloo and curve east to connect to I-35. Also complete the interchange at SH-74 and Hefner Parkway.
The Kickpapoo tpk could also extend south to I-35 to give a eastern north-south bypass of OKC for I-35 travellers.
I-44/Bailey Tpk could desserve more interchanges like the proposed US-81 bypass of Chickasha, US-277/OK-19 and OK-76 at Newcastle as that article mentioned.
There will be a full cloverleaf where the 81 bypass meets the Bailey. It's one of the reasons they moved the toll gate
I was playing around on GSV and noticed the newest section of the Kilpatrick Tpk (south of I-40) doesn't have the toll schedules listed at any of its toll plazas, not even the ramp plazas. Was that some kind of oversight or something?
Quote from: plain on December 12, 2021, 07:50:28 PM
I was playing around on GSV and noticed the newest section of the Kilpatrick Tpk (south of I-40) doesn't have the toll schedules listed at any of its toll plazas, not even the ramp plazas. Was that some kind of oversight or something?
Tolling is all electronic on the Kilpatrick now. I suppose they figured the toll schedules were extraneous information and it didn't need to be posted since you don't have to physically pull out cash anymore.
That could very well be the reasoning but even the AETs here in the east have signs that tell you how much the tolls are. It's nice to know exactly how much is being deducted from your account.
Quote from: rte66man on December 12, 2021, 07:28:26 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on December 12, 2021, 03:00:31 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 08, 2021, 11:31:04 PM
IMO they also need to extend the Kickapoo Turnpike north to I-35. SH-74 should also be upgraded to a freeway to Waterloo and curve east to connect to I-35. Also complete the interchange at SH-74 and Hefner Parkway.
The Kickpapoo tpk could also extend south to I-35 to give a eastern north-south bypass of OKC for I-35 travellers.
I-44/Bailey Tpk could desserve more interchanges like the proposed US-81 bypass of Chickasha, US-277/OK-19 and OK-76 at Newcastle as that article mentioned.
There will be a full cloverleaf where the 81 bypass meets the Bailey. It's one of the reasons they moved the toll gate
I wish they'd build direct connect.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 12, 2021, 08:33:02 PM
Quote from: rte66man on December 12, 2021, 07:28:26 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on December 12, 2021, 03:00:31 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 08, 2021, 11:31:04 PM
IMO they also need to extend the Kickapoo Turnpike north to I-35. SH-74 should also be upgraded to a freeway to Waterloo and curve east to connect to I-35. Also complete the interchange at SH-74 and Hefner Parkway.
The Kickpapoo tpk could also extend south to I-35 to give a eastern north-south bypass of OKC for I-35 travellers.
I-44/Bailey Tpk could desserve more interchanges like the proposed US-81 bypass of Chickasha, US-277/OK-19 and OK-76 at Newcastle as that article mentioned.
There will be a full cloverleaf where the 81 bypass meets the Bailey. It's one of the reasons they moved the toll gate
I wish they'd build direct connect.
Not nearly enough traffic to justify the cost.
Yeah, cloverleaf interchanges are far cheaper to build than direct connect stacks. Oklahoma doesn't have a legit, modern full stack interchange anywhere in the state. There are several other locations far more deserving of that "first" than the future interchange with I-44 and the US-81 bypass in Chickasha. The I-40/I-44 interchange in OKC should be re-built as a full blown stack. At best, I could see the I-44/US-81 cloverleaf interchange being built with C/D lanes, but not anything more elaborate than that. Chances are OTA/ODOT already have standard cloverleaf plans finalized.
Quote from: TXtoNJJust build OK-9 in a trench with cantilevered frontage roads, like a more compact version of 35 in S. OKC.
That would be too expensive and way too disruptive. The existing road and existing intersections would have to be torn out to excavate a trench and bridge new intersections across it. It would be much easier building new freeway "hills" over the existing intersections, likely one half of the road at a time -that way OK-9 could at least remain partially open throughout the construction process.
It's not too expensive if the alternative is the no-build option, and there's plenty of reason to think it would be. Only the 2.5 mi from 35 to Jenkins would need that treatment, anyway - can be a standard interstate-quality freeway east of there.
Yeah the typical argument against everything in Oklahoma that it's too expensive to build
A four level direct connect stack interchange would be sheer overkill for an I-44 interchange with a US highway bypass of a small town. Stack interchanges start out around the $300-$400 million cost range these days. The US-81 bypass will be upgrade-able to a divided Interstate quality freeway, but it's not going to be in that configuration initially. IIRC it will be a combination of limited access Super-2 and maybe some limited access divided 4-lane road. A cloverleaf interchange with I-44 is going to be good enough for that location.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 13, 2021, 07:23:45 PM
A four level direct connect stack interchange would be sheer overkill for an I-44 interchange with a US highway bypass of a small town. Stack interchanges start out around the $300-$400 million cost range these days. The US-81 bypass will be upgrade-able to a divided Interstate quality freeway, but it's not going to be in that configuration initially. IIRC it will be a combination of limited access Super-2 and maybe some limited access divided 4-lane road. A cloverleaf interchange with I-44 is going to be good enough for that location.
You are correct. Limited access 4 lanes north of the southern end thru the I44 interchange to just past Country Club Road. Limited access 2 to the junction with US62, which will be a signalized intersection. Plans are to 4 lane the entire section and build a diamond interchange at US62 as funds allow.
This thread is not even covering I-240's potential extension anymore.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 08, 2021, 12:44:45 PM
Quote from: okc1 on December 08, 2021, 08:33:27 AM
The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is developing a 15-year plan for turnpike expansions and improvements. Paywalled story https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2021/12/08/proposed-oklahoma-highway-plan-to-add-small-town-connections/6413454001/ (https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2021/12/08/proposed-oklahoma-highway-plan-to-add-small-town-connections/6413454001/)
Among things considered - a connection between the Kickapoo and Kilpatrick Turnpikes S of OKC (!), 6-laning the rest of the Turner, and additional exits on existing turnpikes.
Paywall circumvention link: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2021/12/08/proposed-oklahoma-highway-plan-to-add-small-town-connections/6413454001
Time to branch the topic and corresponding posts on the $5 billion/15 year Turnpike plan onto it's own thread.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2021, 07:18:23 PM
You'll have x46s soon enough.
What makes you so sure it's going to be I-46? If I were a gambler, I'd put money that it will be I-50. Springdale would love to say that it's on the junction of "I-49 and I-50".
Quote from: bugo on December 15, 2021, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2021, 07:18:23 PM
You'll have x46s soon enough.
What makes you so sure it's going to be I-46? If I were a gambler, I'd put money that it will be I-50. Springdale would love to say that it's on the junction of "I-49 and I-50".
(https://i.imgur.com/Gv6B1Sf.png)
48 would equally make sense, but that'd set up an I-48/OK-48 intersection and I would hope someone would have the good sense to want to avoid that. As for 50, I would have no problem with that designation, but I don't think anyone at ODOT has the balls to ask for it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 15, 2021, 01:00:23 PM
Quote from: bugo on December 15, 2021, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2021, 07:18:23 PM
You'll have x46s soon enough.
What makes you so sure it's going to be I-46? If I were a gambler, I'd put money that it will be I-50. Springdale would love to say that it's on the junction of "I-49 and I-50".
(https://i.imgur.com/Gv6B1Sf.png)
48 would equally make sense, but that'd set up an I-48/OK-48 intersection and I would hope someone would have the good sense to want to avoid that. As for 50, I would have no problem with that designation, but I don't think anyone at ODOT has the balls to ask for it.
It'd be more likely to be requested on the AR side for the aforementioned reason even though most of the current Congressionally designated mileage is in OK. It'd might be rejected by AASHTO given Arkansas' initial attempt to get I-49 north of I-40 designated back in '97, but since US-412's promotion got congressional backing and connects to interstates on both ends unlike I-49 back in those times, and since US-67 in AR got congressionally designated as Future I-57, who knows? I-99 got pushed through by Congress, so anything's possible. As there isn't a US-50 in OK, AR, and eventually TN(unlikely in our lifetimes, though), it makes more sense here than about anywhere else.
Quote from: MikieTimT on December 16, 2021, 07:54:12 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 15, 2021, 01:00:23 PM
Quote from: bugo on December 15, 2021, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2021, 07:18:23 PM
You'll have x46s soon enough.
What makes you so sure it's going to be I-46? If I were a gambler, I'd put money that it will be I-50. Springdale would love to say that it's on the junction of "I-49 and I-50".
(https://i.imgur.com/Gv6B1Sf.png)
48 would equally make sense, but that'd set up an I-48/OK-48 intersection and I would hope someone would have the good sense to want to avoid that. As for 50, I would have no problem with that designation, but I don't think anyone at ODOT has the balls to ask for it.
It'd be more likely to be requested on the AR side for the aforementioned reason even though most of the current Congressionally designated mileage is in OK. It'd might be rejected by AASHTO given Arkansas' initial attempt to get I-49 north of I-40 designated back in '97, but since US-412's promotion got congressional backing and connects to interstates on both ends unlike I-49 back in those times, and since US-67 in AR got congressionally designated as Future I-57, who knows? I-99 got pushed through by Congress, so anything's possible. As there isn't a US-50 in OK, AR, and eventually TN(unlikely in our lifetimes, though), it makes more sense here than about anywhere else.
Again, this map is not really how the grid works. In a perfect world it would work like that, but this country isn't a perfect rectangle, and the interstates don't go in straight lines. The grid is pretty much always changing. Since its an east/west interstate, and on east/west interstate the mile posts begin in the west (making it so it technically "begins in the west), at that point it lies between I-44 and I-70. That means all even numbers between those two numbers are fair game. As long as it's a number greater than 44 and less than 70, we are good. It doesn't have to fit exactly with the spokes of straight lines through the country. If that were the case, all of I-29 is out of grid because it lies east of I-45 on a straight line. The fact that I-45 stopped two states ago makes that point moot.
It could be I-46 or it could be I-68. I prefer I-50.
The fact that there is no I-50 or I-60 does irritate me.
Let's be real. The grid actually doesn't work at all. This is just an attempt to put some rational thought behind the number.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 15, 2021, 01:00:23 PM
Quote from: bugo on December 15, 2021, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2021, 07:18:23 PM
You'll have x46s soon enough.
What makes you so sure it's going to be I-46? If I were a gambler, I'd put money that it will be I-50. Springdale would love to say that it's on the junction of "I-49 and I-50".
(image deleted for sanity's sake)
48 would equally make sense, but that'd set up an I-48/OK-48 intersection and I would hope someone would have the good sense to want to avoid that. As for 50, I would have no problem with that designation, but I don't think anyone at ODOT has the balls to ask for it.
It's no big deal for a state to renumber a highway to accommodate a new interstate. WI 142 was WI 43 before I-43 came to the state. CA 5 became CA 35. I like I-48 there better than I-50.
Shouldn't the US 412 Interstate designation debate be moved to the "Proposed US 412 Upgrade" thread, and leave this thread to posts about Interstate 240's wacky proposal to be extended into a full beltway around Oklahoma City?
Quote from: skluth on January 11, 2022, 02:35:41 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 15, 2021, 01:00:23 PM
Quote from: bugo on December 15, 2021, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2021, 07:18:23 PM
You'll have x46s soon enough.
What makes you so sure it's going to be I-46? If I were a gambler, I'd put money that it will be I-50. Springdale would love to say that it's on the junction of "I-49 and I-50".
(image deleted for sanity's sake)
48 would equally make sense, but that'd set up an I-48/OK-48 intersection and I would hope someone would have the good sense to want to avoid that. As for 50, I would have no problem with that designation, but I don't think anyone at ODOT has the balls to ask for it.
It's no big deal for a state to renumber a highway to accommodate a new interstate. WI 142 was WI 43 before I-43 came to the state. CA 5 became CA 35. I like I-48 there better than I-50.
It's not a huge deal procedurally, but SH-48 is 159½ miles long, nearly three times the length of CA 35. I'm pretty sure Oklahoma wouldn't bother and would just leave SH-48 alone. We do have a SH-44 after all, although it doesn't intersect with I-44.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 11, 2022, 05:08:40 PM
Shouldn't the US 412 Interstate designation debate be moved to the "Proposed US 412 Upgrade" thread, and leave this thread to posts about Interstate 240's wacky proposal to be extended into a full beltway around Oklahoma City?
It is one janky looking beltway, with tolls to boot. Guess it serves the purpose, though.
Any updates?
Generally, this isn't a thing that we're going to get regular updates on. We'll know it's happening whenever a signage project gets let, I expect.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 05, 2022, 04:18:32 PM
Generally, this isn't a thing that we're going to get regular updates on. We'll know it's happening whenever a signage project gets let, I expect.
We might know something about the future of I-240 on the OKC metro after next week, when AASHTO has its spring meeting in New Orleans. I don't know if ODOT and OTA have submitted their application to extend the I-240 designation for consideration at next week's meeting, as AASHTO doesn't post the pending route designation applications. They used to post the route designation applications before the meeting years ago...but not anymore.
If AASHTO decline OKDOT and OTA request, will they put a NYSDOT by calling it OK-240?
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on May 06, 2022, 04:34:03 PM
If AASHTO decline OKDOT and OTA request, will they put a NYSDOT by calling it OK-240?
No. Turnpike numbers start with 3.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on May 06, 2022, 04:34:03 PM
If AASHTO decline OKDOT and OTA request, will they put a NYSDOT by calling it OK-240?
No, but they could pull an OKDOT by going ahead with the designation anyway. (Precedent: US 177)
Quote from: JMoses24 on May 24, 2022, 03:27:52 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on May 06, 2022, 04:34:03 PM
If AASHTO decline OKDOT and OTA request, will they put a NYSDOT by calling it OK-240?
No, but they could pull an OKDOT by going ahead with the designation anyway. (Precedent: US 177)
ODOT only did that with US-377 because they were compelled to by federal law. (The Congressman for Shawnee wrote the designation into law, about a decade before I-99 happened.)
This is all moot anyways, since AASHTO did indeed approve the extension in the Fall 2021 meeting.
https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2022/02/Final-Report-USRN-Application-Results-Fall-2021.pdf
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 24, 2022, 03:49:40 PM
Quote from: JMoses24 on May 24, 2022, 03:27:52 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on May 06, 2022, 04:34:03 PM
If AASHTO decline OKDOT and OTA request, will they put a NYSDOT by calling it OK-240?
No, but they could pull an OKDOT by going ahead with the designation anyway. (Precedent: US 177)
ODOT only did that with US-377 because they were compelled to by federal law. (The Congressman for Shawnee wrote the designation into law, about a decade before I-99 happened.)
I like the "you didn't give me permission? Screw it, were signing it as US-377 anyway" story much better!
So its a done deal? When will they sign it?
Generally, this isn't a thing that we're going to get regular updates on. We'll know it's happening whenever a signage project gets let, I expect.
Quote from: jdingus on May 05, 2022, 11:20:08 AM
Any updates?
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 05, 2022, 04:18:32 PM
Generally, this isn't a thing that we're going to get regular updates on. We'll know it's happening whenever a signage project gets let, I expect.
Quote from: jdingus on May 31, 2022, 01:15:30 PM
So its a done deal? When will they sign it?
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 31, 2022, 04:51:07 PM
Generally, this isn't a thing that we're going to get regular updates on. We'll know it's happening whenever a signage project gets let, I expect.
For those who didn't fully appreciate the clever response.
Bumping this thread because it seems as if discussion of this interchange is in every thread but this one. The next phase of improvements is on the Tentative December Bid Opening list:
4 IS035 1.000
I-35: OVER THE I-240 JCT. RECONSTR INTERCHANGE (PHASE IB)
INTERCHANGE
OKLAHOMA
09032(05) $43,525,626.81
NHPPI -0035-3(125) 121
What is the scope of work in Phase 1B of this interchange project?
So far, the only new work done on the I-240/I-35 interchange is the EB I-240 to SB I-35 ramp over 4 years ago. That carved away part of the OK DPS parking lot on the SW corner of the interchange.
In the early 2000's the I-35 main lanes were widened from 2x2 to 3x3 through the interchange.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 11, 2022, 11:47:19 AM
What is the scope of work in Phase 1B of this interchange project?
So far, the only new work done on the I-240/I-35 interchange is the EB I-240 to SB I-35 ramp over 4 years ago. That carved away part of the OK DPS parking lot on the SW corner of the interchange.
In the early 2000's the I-35 main lanes were widened from 2x2 to 3x3 through the interchange.
I was going to look it up, but the latest web page redesign is an abject failure. It is BLANK!!
Take this with a grain of salt, but a poster in another forum claimed they emailed the OTA about this proposal and they were told the state is no longer going to pursue this designation or sign it. If that's true thank god.
^ If so, good. Although I don't see any issue with the western loop. It was just the I-40 / I-44 / Kickapoo overlap that make no sense.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2023, 01:35:27 PM
Take this with a grain of salt, but a poster in another forum claimed they emailed the OTA about this proposal and they were told the state is no longer going to pursue this designation or sign it. If that's true thank god.
What forum?
Quote from: bugo on March 22, 2023, 04:24:11 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2023, 01:35:27 PM
Take this with a grain of salt, but a poster in another forum claimed they emailed the OTA about this proposal and they were told the state is no longer going to pursue this designation or sign it. If that's true thank god.
What forum?
OKCTalk, probably. I saw a thread on that there.
I replied to it that I'm guessing whichever OTA dork they got ahold of didn't know what they were talking about, considering this was already approved by AASHTO. So at the very most you would be able to file this in the same drawer I-444 is in.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 22, 2023, 05:53:23 PM
Quote from: bugo on March 22, 2023, 04:24:11 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2023, 01:35:27 PM
Take this with a grain of salt, but a poster in another forum claimed they emailed the OTA about this proposal and they were told the state is no longer going to pursue this designation or sign it. If that's true thank god.
What forum?
OKCTalk, probably. I saw a thread on that there.
I replied to it that I'm guessing whichever OTA dork they got ahold of didn't know what they were talking about, considering this was already approved by AASHTO. So at the very most you would be able to file this in the same drawer I-444 is in.
Is posting links to other forum websites allowed on here?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2023, 06:26:13 PM
Is posting links to other forum websites allowed on here?
It should be. The intent of the forum rule about other websites is supposed to prevent things like "Why am I banned from Highway Divides" or "Why am I being required to pay to post in ExampleForums", not simply linking.
*I'm not aware of any forum that requires paying anything other than a one-time registration fee for SomethingAwful.
Yeah, go right ahead.
https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=47508
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 22, 2023, 06:51:08 PM
Yeah, go right ahead.
https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=47508
Awesome! I wasn't sure. I got a temporary ban for doing that on either city data or SSP.
If the 240 extension is truly cancelled, it wouldn't upset me too much. It seemed like a pie-in-the-sky proposal to me. However, until there is official confirmation of the extension's cancelation (outside of this and okctalk.com's forums), I will take it is not yet cancelled.
I could care less if it were cancelled, because that idea never was good to begin with.
Yeah, I agree it's no great loss, but the fact is we don't know for sure other than some random OTA public relations employee saying so. Now, I get that they're generally pretty reliable, but H.B. has been pretty clear that they aren't as omniscient as we'd like.
I wouldn't have minded the I-240 designation being extended along the Airport Road freeway and along that new portion of the Kilpatrick Turnpike just up to I-40. That way both ends of I-240 would have terminated with I-40. The complete overlap of both the Kilpatrick and Kickapoo Turnpikes was just too much.
One thing they could do.
Extend 240 to Airport Road to JKT to I-35 and Extend 235 to JKT. I would be for that.
Kickapoo can be X35 When they extend to the south to Purcell.
The wacky idea.
Realign I-44 with JKT to either OK-74 to the South. Or keep it on the JKT to the proposed extension to the Tri-City Area when they build it. And bring back the old I-240 alignment for current I-44.
In the same ODOT Commission meeting that designated I-42 for the US 412 upgrade (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=34017.msg2879576#msg2879576), they also change the OKC Belt Buckle to be 3 designations: 240, 344 and 335. The truly stupid part of that is that 344 and 240 will end at each other at OK 152 and not at I-40.
Quote from: MapmikeyThe truly stupid part of that is that 344 and 240 will end at each other at OK 152 and not at I-40.
That has been mentioned earlier. Some of us are hopeful the AASHTO will shoot down ODOT's route number suggestion because it is indeed pretty stupid.
Maybe the JKT could become Interstate 344, but the 344 designation could end at the JKT's southern terminus with the Airport Road freeway, while the Airport Road freeway remains OK 152. Either that, or all of JKT and ARF becomes an extension of Interstate 240. I agree with the KT getting the OK/Interstate 335 designation.
I've always thought I-44 should be routed to the Kilpatrick Turnpike and then onto the Hefner Parkway which the road if going straight ultimately ends up as I-44.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 29, 2023, 07:33:02 PM
I've always thought I-44 should be routed to the Kilpatrick Turnpike and then onto the Hefner Parkway which the road if going straight ultimately ends up as I-44.
I believe the mileage markers already in place would fit if that change was made.
I'm perplexed at how a group of people in charge of roads could have so many stupid numbering ideas. Like they seem to have zero sense of how the system is supposed to work. Between this OKC "beltway" hodgepodge, the idiotic desire to duplicate I-42 and now Arkansas wanting a brainless extension of what should be a dead US route, there's something going on in that part of the country that's causing people to be stupid. Have these idiots never opened a map before? Jesus.
What's next, "The commission decides that the Creek Turnpike will be designated I-95." Because rules are for squares.
Well, a politician wrote the Interstate 99 designation into law, and the northernmost portion of CA 238 got promoted into an Interstate, so stranger designations have come into fruition. Unless the Creek Turnpike got a Interstate designation that was not a 3di of Interstate 44, I would suggest whoever made the outlandish proposed designation to get their head examined.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 30, 2023, 10:43:54 AM
Well, a politician wrote the Interstate 99 designation into law, and the northernmost portion of CA 238 got promoted into an Interstate, so stranger designations have come into fruition. Unless the Creek Turnpike got a Interstate designation that was not a 3di of Interstate 44, I would suggest whoever made the outlandish proposed designation to get their head examined.
When the I-42 designation is completed in Tulsa in place of US-412, I-244 should be stopped at the southwest corner of the Inner Dispersal Loop (IDL) and the unsigned I-444 designation removed from the south and east legs of the IDL. The west, south and east legs of the IDL should become I-442.
The Creek should then be I-444.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 30, 2023, 09:39:37 AM
I'm perplexed at how a group of people in charge of roads could have so many stupid numbering ideas.
Welcome to Oklahoma government! Just wait until you see their stupid ideas on...well, anything more consequential than road numbering. (Education is a fine place to start digging, since you mentioned "something going on in that part of the country that's causing people to be stupid".)
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 30, 2023, 09:39:37 AM
I'm perplexed at how a group of people in charge of roads could have so many stupid numbering ideas.
I have a sneaking suspicion that, outside of roadgeek communities, numbering is the least significant thing about roads.
Quote from: kphoger on October 30, 2023, 02:17:56 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 30, 2023, 09:39:37 AM
I'm perplexed at how a group of people in charge of roads could have so many stupid numbering ideas.
I have a sneaking suspicion that, outside of roadgeek communities, numbering is the least significant thing about roads.
Probably but I'm hardly a road geek who cares that much about signage and still can see how dumb this proposal is.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 30, 2023, 03:30:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 30, 2023, 02:17:56 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 30, 2023, 09:39:37 AM
I'm perplexed at how a group of people in charge of roads could have so many stupid numbering ideas.
I have a sneaking suspicion that, outside of roadgeek communities, numbering is the least significant thing about roads.
Probably but I'm hardly a road geek who cares that much about signage and still can see how dumb this proposal is.
"People in charge of roads" are precisely the group I should most expect to "have so many stupid numbering ideas". They know enough about the numbering conventions to be able to say "Hey, here's a new idea! What if we..." and enough power to actually make it happen.
Quote from: kphoger on October 30, 2023, 03:35:17 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 30, 2023, 03:30:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 30, 2023, 02:17:56 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 30, 2023, 09:39:37 AM
I'm perplexed at how a group of people in charge of roads could have so many stupid numbering ideas.
I have a sneaking suspicion that, outside of roadgeek communities, numbering is the least significant thing about roads.
Probably but I'm hardly a road geek who cares that much about signage and still can see how dumb this proposal is.
"People in charge of roads" are precisely the group I should most expect to "have so many stupid numbering ideas". They know enough about the numbering conventions to be able to say "Hey, here's a new idea! What if we..." and enough power to actually make it happen.
Are you living under a rock? We have politicians who can't find money or will for vital projects but can Israel and Ukraine 100+ billion like nothing while our infrastructure rots. Mods delete if that's too political as I don't mean it to be but my point is our leaders are exactly the brightest bulb in the shed. Voters don't seem to care much either other than making signs. I don't see very many complaining about route signage.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 30, 2023, 03:41:24 PM
Are you living under a rock?
Nope.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 30, 2023, 03:41:24 PM
We have politicians who can't find money or will for vital projects but can Israel and Ukraine 100+ billion like nothing while our infrastructure rots.
Has nothing to do with route numbers.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 30, 2023, 03:41:24 PM
my point is our leaders are exactly the brightest bulb in the shed.
And my point wasn't that they
are the brightest bulbs in the shed.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 30, 2023, 03:41:24 PM
Voters don't seem to care much either other than making signs. I don't see very many complaining about route signage.
Nope, nobody but us geeks cares about the numbers or the signs. And people in charge of roads.
You're making a lot of assumptions that people in charge aren't road geeks just because they don't agree with you on a particular route number since we're generalizing.
What I said about other foreign affairs funding absolutely does have relevance with route since we're talking about the incompetency of politicians. You think politicians and leaders are dumb for making one decision I'm in agreeing in saying they are dumb in making many other decisions too so in this particular instance it shouldn't be news.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 30, 2023, 04:36:05 PM
You're making a lot of assumptions that people in charge aren't road geeks just because they don't agree with you on a particular route number since we're generalizing.
Yes, for the most part, that is my assumption. But, more to the point, I imagine that the people in charge of roads who
are roadgeeks are the most likely of anyone to come up with bonehead numbering ideas, because they (1) know enough about numbering to care, (2) are confident enough in themselves to think they can improve the system by breaking its conventions, and (3) have the power to pull it off.
Quote from: kphoger on October 30, 2023, 03:52:25 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 30, 2023, 03:41:24 PM
We have politicians who can't find money or will for vital projects but can Israel and Ukraine 100+ billion like nothing while our infrastructure rots.
Has nothing to do with route numbers.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 30, 2023, 04:36:05 PM
What I said about other foreign affairs funding absolutely does have relevance with route since we're talking about the incompetency of politicians. You think politicians and leaders are dumb for making one decision I'm in agreeing in saying they are dumb in making many other decisions too so in this particular instance it shouldn't be news.
No, it has nothing to do with route numbers. The people who are deciding to send money to Israel and Ukraine are not the same people deciding what number to put on route signs.
I-344 and I-335; what are those planners smoking?
Quote from: Henry on October 30, 2023, 10:17:14 PM
I-344 and I-335; what are those planners smoking?
That's precisely what I'm saying. It doesn't take a road geek to see how dumb this proposal is. All of Kilpatrick could be an X44 number given both ends connect to I-44 with the southern end becoming SH-152 connecting to I-44.
I can understand I-335.
If anything, I-344 should be the Kickapoo Turnpike, seeing as it doesn't connect with I-35 at all (but does meet up with I-44), while what's being planned as 344 should be an x44 or x35 if not an I-240 extension. In any case, what's planned as 344 and 240 should end at I-40, not SH-152.
Just gonna quote myself here for those who are mad about I-240 and I-344 ending at each other:
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 13, 2023, 01:01:42 PM
It makes more sense if you look at the actual interchanges. The through movement at the changeover point favors SH-152/future I-240.
(https://i.imgur.com/jvHiXEW.png)
(green line is Kilpatrick Turnpike/future I-344, blue line is SH-152/future I-240)
Meanwhile the I-40/Kilpatrick Turnpike interchange is a standard cloverleaf (yes, we're still building them because we hate ourselves), so it would be awfully artificial to have a designation change in the middle of it.
(https://i.imgur.com/t9c7PPN.png)
"Artificial? There are a ton of Interstates that end at a cloverleaf. Future I-42 will end at a cloverleaf at I-35 is a future example.
How many Interstates become a different Interstate at the middle of a cloverleaf, however?
Roadgeeks find it perfectly logical to have a route number change there because it's crossing a different interstate and thus it satisfies The Rules. But your mom probably wouldn't get why the road randomly bops from 344 to 240. It makes a lot more sense for someone who doesn't know or care about The Rules to have two interstates end at each other at a junction like the Kilpatrick/152 junction than to change numbers in the middle of a thru movement.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 31, 2023, 07:58:54 PM
How many Interstates become a different Interstate at the middle of a cloverleaf, however?
Trumpet mainline: I-95/93 southern junction.
Also a trumpet mainline: I-76/80.
I-74/80, and this one's actually a cloverleaf.
I-494/694 off the top of my head
Quote from: 1 on October 31, 2023, 10:28:04 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 31, 2023, 07:58:54 PM
How many Interstates become a different Interstate at the middle of a cloverleaf, however?
Trumpet mainline: I-95/93 southern junction.
Also a trumpet mainline: I-76/80.
I-74/80, and this one's actually a cloverleaf.
* I-494 and I-694 at I-94 east of St. Paul
* I-270 and I-255 at I-55 south of St. Louis used to fully count, but that interchange is now a cloverstack.
* I believe I-270 and the former I-244 would have had this at I-70 in the St. Louis metro.
If I-240 has to end at a dead end traffic intersection in freaking Mustang why extend it at all!?
My own opinion is I-240 is not worth extending at all EVER unless it gets extended to up I-40 at the other end on the West side of OKC. Otherwise leave it as it is with it ending at I-44. Any other configuration is just stupid. Two Interstate designations ending at a PARTIAL interchange to a surface street is just nonsense.
Your objection to this is the lack of an SH-152 east to Kilpatrick Turnpike north ramp?
At least the original idea of a beltway I-240 made some sense as a bypass, even though having two multiplexes with I-44 (and a third one with I-40) was questionable.
The hairbrained idea is this new one. If I-344 is to exist, in my view it should be on the Kickapoo only, and even then...once/if the Kickapoo is extended to I-35, it can be an even I-x35. Have I-240 end at I-40 on both ends; the Kilpatrick north of I-40 doesn't need to be an interstate.
Quote from: Scott5114Your objection to this is the lack of an SH-152 east to Kilpatrick Turnpike north ramp?
I have multiple objections to the idea. It's bad enough two Interstates would be ending at an exit to a state highway. It's even worse the exit is a partial interchange.
ODOT and OTA might even have to revise this route signing scheme if they follow through on this I-344/I-240 plan. If the Tri-City Connector turnpike is built from Airport Road, West of Will Rogers Airport and down to I-44 that would be a logical extension for this I-344 idea (unless they sign another I-x44 number on it). I-240 could end at the Tri-City Connector's "Y" interchange with Airport Road. It would make more sense than the exit to OK-152.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 01, 2023, 01:46:14 PM
Quote from: Scott5114Your objection to this is the lack of an SH-152 east to Kilpatrick Turnpike north ramp?
I have multiple objections to the idea. It's bad enough two Interstates would be ending at an exit to a state highway. It's even worse the exit is a partial interchange.
What state highway is being exited to here? It's not SH-152, because that's the through movement.
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.
Given that this wouldn't be the first time an Interstate starting with 3 has both ends at an Interstate (I-335 KS has existed for 40 years), it's kind of lame to bitch about it now. Especially because I've never seen anyone demand KTA change their number to I-835.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 31, 2023, 07:16:48 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/jvHiXEW.png)
(green line is Kilpatrick Turnpike/future I-344, blue line is SH-152/future I-240)
Routes exit off themselves all over the place. I am unmoved by this.
Hopefully AASHTO slaps down these idiotic pitches from OK and assigns them some additional reading to help them redo their assignment.
I'm gonna need all of y'all to go take a gander at OK-77S and then come back and tell me this is so bad.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 01, 2023, 02:48:18 PM
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.
Or 4.
Quote from: bugo on November 01, 2023, 03:06:45 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 01, 2023, 02:48:18 PM
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.
Or 4.
Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
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.
Quote from: bugo on November 01, 2023, 03:17:37 PM
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.
Quote from: Scott5114What 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.
Quote from: Scott5114Also, 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 01, 2023, 08:13:55 PM
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.
Quote from: bugo on November 01, 2023, 03:17:37 PM
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!
Quote from: bugo on November 01, 2023, 07:59:40 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: kphoger on November 02, 2023, 10:14:08 AM
Quote from: bugo on November 01, 2023, 07:59:40 PM
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
Quote
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 01, 2023, 07:23:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114What 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.
Quote from: Scott5114Also, 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/b6JMyhNCgzZwT8Po8Doesn'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.
If they're going to do it, this is how I think the I-240/344 and SH 152 interchange might look going west.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FP61G0xLm.jpg&hash=960540b98bc6a47c26430ee5f30a836886460c4e) (https://imgur.com/P61G0xL)
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.
Quote from: bugo on November 02, 2023, 02:22:27 PM
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.
Quote from: bugo on November 02, 2023, 02:22:27 PM
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
I have never seen a BEGIN sign in Oklahoma (to the point that they surprise me when I find them in other states).
Quote from: swake on November 02, 2023, 05:16:46 PM
Quote from: bugo on November 02, 2023, 02:22:27 PM
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.
Quote from: swake on November 02, 2023, 05:16:46 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: bugo on November 02, 2023, 02:22:27 PM
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.
Quote from: bugo on November 02, 2023, 09:34:30 PM
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.
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.
So I am guessing that Airport Road is officially I-240 now?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: jdingus on December 13, 2023, 10:42:50 AM
So I am guessing that Airport Road is officially I-240 now?
Since that stretch will undergo major widening in 2024, I will wager that ODOT will wait to re-sign it until they are done with construction.
Is this proposed widening of the OK 152 Airport Freeway an expansion of the freeway from four to six lanes?
Quote from: swake on November 02, 2023, 05:16:46 PM
Quote from: bugo on November 02, 2023, 02:22:27 PM
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
I was just looking around this area and noticed an error on a sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9884647,-96.0146832,3a,15y,274.8h,86.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7UL6fSweYZnPRLhYfMDgSw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
(https://i.imgur.com/cHxi69l.png)
Shouldn't that sign be 117 and not 117A? 121st street all the way through Sapulpa is still signed 117; 117A is only in Sapulpa by the high school correct?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 14, 2023, 02:50:48 PM
Is this proposed widening of the OK 152 Airport Freeway an expansion of the freeway from four to six lanes?
Yes
Quote from: will_e_777 on December 14, 2023, 03:35:54 PM
Shouldn't that sign be 117 and not 117A? 121st street all the way through Sapulpa is still signed 117; 117A is only in Sapulpa by the high school correct?
Yes, it should be SH 117.
SH 117A is still only in Sapulpa, but who knows how long it will remain since SH 66 is now rerouted over the entire length of SH 117A.
Does anyone know when signage of Interstate 240/Interstate 344 will be installed on Airport Rd. and the John Kilpatrick Turnpike?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 22, 2023, 01:12:43 PM
Does anyone know when signage of Interstate 240/Interstate 344 will be installed on Airport Rd. and the John Kilpatrick Turnpike?
Why do you need to know? It's doubtful that even ODOT knows at this point.
Just curious. I take it the answer to my question is no.
Their numbering scheme is going to be rejected by FHWA and AASHTO, so never.
OKDOT will be sent home reading material and have to redo their assignment.
<edit>
Catching up other threads, apparently AASHTO still does smoke some crack since they're down with bad idea I-344. Maybe FHWA will still do their job and force them to give this loop an even number. :ded:
Quote from: US75A on December 20, 2023, 09:43:42 PM
SH 117A is still only in Sapulpa, but who knows how long it will remain since SH 66 is now rerouted over the entire length of SH 117A.
When was OK 66 moved? Where does it run now? Was OK 33 truncated?
Quote from: bugo on December 28, 2023, 12:18:36 PM
Quote from: US75A on December 20, 2023, 09:43:42 PM
SH 117A is still only in Sapulpa, but who knows how long it will remain since SH 66 is now rerouted over the entire length of SH 117A.
When was OK 66 moved? Where does it run now? Was OK 33 truncated?
It was moved in October or November 2022, I don't recall the exact date.
The new route has 66 multiplexed with 117 between the west end of 117 and the junction with 117A and multiplexed over the entire route of 117A. The City of Sapulpa wanted 66 out of downtown and this was the result.
33 isn't signed on the new route....but it wasn't mentioned during the news stories when the rerouting and handover of the old 66 route to the city of Sapulpa were discussed. The "West 33" signs where 66 formerly turned west at 117A are gone, so.....
Quote from: US75A on December 29, 2023, 07:25:32 AM
Quote from: bugo on December 28, 2023, 12:18:36 PM
Quote from: US75A on December 20, 2023, 09:43:42 PM
SH 117A is still only in Sapulpa, but who knows how long it will remain since SH 66 is now rerouted over the entire length of SH 117A.
When was OK 66 moved? Where does it run now? Was OK 33 truncated?
It was moved in October or November 2022, I don't recall the exact date.
The new route has 66 multiplexed with 117 between the west end of 117 and the junction with 117A and multiplexed over the entire route of 117A. The City of Sapulpa wanted 66 out of downtown and this was the result.
33 isn't signed on the new route....but it wasn't mentioned during the news stories when the rerouting and handover of the old 66 route to the city of Sapulpa were discussed. The "West 33" signs where 66 formerly turned west at 117A are gone, so.....
I thought 33 was truncated at 66 east of Kellyville and has been since 412 subsumed it east of Tulsa
Quote from: rte66man on December 30, 2023, 09:32:50 PM
I thought 33 was truncated at 66 east of Kellyville and has been since 412 subsumed it east of Tulsa
It ended at Dewey and Mission for years.
Quote from: bugo on December 31, 2023, 01:24:53 AM
Quote from: rte66man on December 30, 2023, 09:32:50 PM
I thought 33 was truncated at 66 east of Kellyville and has been since 412 subsumed it east of Tulsa
It ended at Dewey and Mission for years.
Maybe if there was a helpful "END" sign?
Quote from: swake on December 31, 2023, 12:12:55 PM
Quote from: bugo on December 31, 2023, 01:24:53 AM
Quote from: rte66man on December 30, 2023, 09:32:50 PM
I thought 33 was truncated at 66 east of Kellyville and has been since 412 subsumed it east of Tulsa
It ended at Dewey and Mission for years.
Maybe if there was a helpful "END" sign?
That'd be too easy.
Before all of this rerouting business, there was no "END 33" sign at Dewey & Mission, but it was signed west of there. The "TO 33" and "33 West" signs on southbound Mission were removed when 66 was rerouted (there wasn't any 33 signs on northbound Mission).
The odd thing is that they left the "33" sign at the west end up of 117 when they removed the "66" from the assembly that showed a right turn to go east on 33/66.
So with I-240 being extended to the new I-344 are they going to have to redo the mileage and the exit numbers?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 14, 2023, 02:50:48 PM
Is this proposed widening of the OK 152 Airport Freeway an expansion of the freeway from four to six lanes?
April Tentative Bid Opening
32882(08) 4 SH152 2.100 GRADE,DRAIN,BRIDGE & SURFACE 12,900,000.00
OKLAHOMA SH-152: FROM MERIDIAN EAST TO I-44, AND SOUTH ALONG I-44 TO 74TH ST.
NHPP -255N (534) PM
I'll see if I can find the details. It's hard to find plans after ODOT 'improved' their website.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSz2ZO_fm-c
OTA's March 5th board meeting...
Skip to the 28-minute mark on the approval of the John Kilpatrick Turnpike to I-344 and the Kickapoo Turnpike to I-335.
TLDW: The OTA board approved with a 5-0 vote on the designations of the John Kilpatrick Turnpike to I-344 and the Kickapoo Turnpike to I-335.
Does that mean the Airport Freeway segment will remain OK 152? Or will it still become an extension of Interstate 240?
I would think the I-344 designation would consume the Airport Freeway portion of OK-152 so both ends of I-344 would terminate at I-44. That would make more logical sense than extending I-240 along Airport Road, where the I-240 designation would merely change to I-344 at a partial exit for OK-152. Or will ODOT have I-240 follow OK-152 to end at a traffic signal for SW 59th Street? That too would be utterly stupid looking on a map.
Obviously the I-335 route would need to follow the proposed Kickapoo Turnpike extension down to Purcell and I-35.
Another interesting question is if the East-West Connector Turnpike between I-44 and proposed I-344 will get an Interstate designation. If so, it should probably be an I-x35 numbered route to save some I-x44 numbers for elsewhere in the state.
The Tri-City Connector Turnpike (going around the West side of Will Rogers Airport in OKC) would be another potential Interstate route. If/when that one gets built it could possibly be a further extension of I-344 and make an extension of I-240 onto Airport Road slightly more logical. But I-240 would be able to follow Airport Road for only about 4 miles before reaching the interchange with the Tri-City Connector Turnpike and I-344. Would such a short extension of an Interstate designation even be worth it? I think it would be less confusing for the Tri-City Connector to get its own specific route designation, be it an OK-3XX route or an I-x44 route.
I can hear the arguments that I-344 is a bad designation for a highway that will meet I-44 on both ends. I-644 and I-844 are still available, so I think it's likely that AASHTO/FHWA will suggest one of these two numbers to ODOT.
I also think that I-335 is premature, because opposition can always stop the Kickapoo extension dead in its tracks, and then the shit will truly hit the fan, as it were. I-344 would make a better designation for that.
I don't like these "I-3XX" Interstate loop numbers very much either. For whatever reason the OTA just got fixated on these SH-3XX designation numbers for turnpikes. There are only 3 possible Interstate 3xx route designations in Oklahoma. And Tulsa has an existing OK-344 designation applied to the Gilcrease Expressway. When completed, that would actually make more sense as an "I-344." The Kilpatrick Turnpike should have been called I-844 or I-440. OKC could use plenty of I-x35 and I-x40 designations without burning up I-x44 numbers that could potentially be used in Tulsa (or even Lawton).
I think the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is going to have an easier time legally speaking building the Kickapoo Turnpike extension down to I-35 than what they faced with the East-West Connector Turnpike passing between Moore and Norman. There isn't a lot of homes out in the proposed path of that turnpike. The turnpike extension looks like it will pass far enough North and West of Lake Thunderbird to avoid most of the big houses built near the lake. The turnpike could actually spark a boom of new homes and businesses in that area due to the improved highway access.
The East-West Connector is going to get built earlier than some of the other Access Oklahoma projects. It's in the design phase currently.
The East-West Connector Turnpike will at least set the stage for the Northern half of the Kickapoo Turnpike extension to get built. That connector turnpike has to connect to something. The segment going down to Slaughterville and Purcell may get built last.
Maybe they should hold off on signing the Interstate 335 designation along the Kickapoo Turnpike until the extension southward connects with Interstate 35. An alternative would be to temporarily number the Kickapoo Turnpike OK 335. Although this is unlikely to happen, maybe when Interstate 344 is signposted along the John Kilpatrick Turnpike, the Interstate 235 designation could be extended north along the US 77 freeway to end at 344.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 06, 2024, 10:38:20 AM
Maybe they should hold off on signing the Interstate 335 designation along the Kickapoo Turnpike until the extension southward connects with Interstate 35. An alternative would be to temporarily number the Kickapoo Turnpike OK 335. Although this is unlikely to happen, maybe when Interstate 344 is signposted along the John Kilpatrick Turnpike, the Interstate 235 designation could be extended north along the US 77 freeway to end at 344.
Welp, they're not going to do that, since it sounds like signs will go up within the month. So we have what we have.
I would have nothing against extending the I-235 designation farther North to the Kilpatrick Turnpike since it will be signed as I-344. Broadway Extension certainly meets Interstate standards (especially since it was widened back in the 2000's). And Edmond is a control city for I-235.
I always thought even prefixes can be used for loops or connecting to another interstate and both ends and even a 3di.
Both proposed I-344 and I-335 could technically being even.
I'm not familiar with the proposed I-344 and the I-240 interchange but what about extending I-240 even further around the NW side of the city up to I-35 in the northside.
Read back in this thread. That was OKDOT's original pitch: Make 240 loop all the way around, ride 44 to the Kickapoo, and back south to 40.
But then they shifted gears to this stupid 344 bullshit to service some made up rule about numbering turnpikes in their state. And now I hate it. I'd rather there be no 3di than this idiocy.
Now just imagine if all of your life was affected by decision-making of this caliber, and you know what it's like to live in Oklahoma.
Still, it's better than Texas's ongoing infatuation with letter suffixes.
I'm not so sure about that. Still kind of expecting to see an "End I-240" post sign at the traffic signal of OK-152 and SW 59th Street. Then maybe Tulsa will have an I-364 loop despite its parent route ending over 350 miles away in St Louis. But that's how the OTA rolls.
So will they have to redo all the exit numbers on I-240 as well?
They very likely will have to renumber 240's exits, with each exit likely increasing by 6 or 7 digits. They should also reconfigure the Interstate 44/Interstate 240 East interchange so that Interstate 44 traffic doesn't have to exit to stay on 44. The Interstate 44/OK 152 West interchange should also be reconfigured so that all exit and entrance ramps are on the right-hand side. Finally, the John Kilpatrick Turnpike should get rid of their mile markers that are in the 100s.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 02, 2024, 03:16:44 PMThey very likely will have to renumber 240's exits, with each exit likely increasing by 6 or 7 digits
So current exit 3 might become exit 3000000?
I mean 6 or 7 digits higher than they already are (e.g. Exit 3 becomes Exit 9 or Exit 10). I would have thought that was obvious.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 03, 2024, 02:23:11 PMI mean 6 or 7 digits higher than they already are (e.g. Exit 3 becomes Exit 9 or Exit 10). I would have thought that was obvious.
Nobody ever words that in that way. The word "digits" refers to numerical characters, not their value. If someone says "The temperature today will hit triple digits" nobody thinks it's going to be 3°.