Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Scott5114]

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.

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.

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[Revive 755]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

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.

The 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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

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.

the 169?

Welp, you're officially more Californian than Oklahoman now, PluPan.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ 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.

[SkyPesos]

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.

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.

[Alex]

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:

This 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:

Within 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:

[Scott5114]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

I-244 needs upgraded in several spots anyways at the interchange with the left exits. Those are just awful.

[bugo]

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.

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.

[bugo]

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.

[Henry]

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:

[SkyPesos]

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.

[sprjus4]

^ Not really… They are reasonably proposals, IMO. The only problem is funding.

[Scott5114]

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.

[SkyPesos]

I could see Oklahoma become the next NCDOT in the next few years after this 

[Scott5114]

I could see Oklahoma become the next NCDOT in the next few years after this 

NCDOT actually has money.

[US 89]

I could see Oklahoma become the next NCDOT in the next few years after this 

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.

[Scott5114]

I could see Oklahoma become the next NCDOT in the next few years after this 

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.

[-- US 175 --]

I-240 extension approved by the Transportation Commission, pending approval by AASHTO and FHWA.

I wonder what AASHTO/FHWA will really think of this.