I'm wondering if anyone in this forum might know the answer to this question: When the first turnpikes in Oklahoma were first built did the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (or any other state authority for that matter) make any promises to the public to remove the toll gates once the road paid for itself?
I have heard this story from various people in Oklahoma over the years, from friends and relatives to people on local Facebook forums. The story seems a little fishy to me. But it has been repeated so much that it doesn't seem like anyone questions the truth of it. Lots of drivers who hate toll roads bring up this story when griping about tolls. They complain the OTA promised to take down the toll gates after 3 years or something like that.
So what's the real truth about it?
As far as I'm aware, this was only the case with the Turner Turnpike, and was written into the law that authorized the Turner Turnpike. The law was amended to allow cross-pledging (allowing revenue from one turnpike to pay for another) in 1953, and affirmed by a referendum in 1954.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 04, 2016, 01:21:51 AM
As far as I'm aware, this was only the case with the Turner Turnpike, and was written into the law that authorized the Turner Turnpike. The law was amended to allow cross-pledging (allowing revenue from one turnpike to pay for another) in 1953, and affirmed by a referendum in 1954.
Here is the relevant citation:
69-1705(f)
To issue turnpike revenue bonds of the Authority, payable solely from revenues, including the revenues accruing to the trust fund created by Sections 1701 through 1734 of this title, for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of any one or more turnpike projects.
69-1717 -
When all bonds issued under the provisions of this article and the interest thereon shall have been paid or a sufficient amount for the payment of all such bonds and the interest thereon to the maturity thereof shall have been set aside in trust for the benefit of the bondholders, such projects, if then in good condition and repair to the satisfaction of the Commission, shall become part of the state highway system and shall thereafter be maintained by the Commission free of tolls. Provided, that when all bonds for any turnpike project and the interest thereon shall have been paid or such provision for payment made, prior to payment of the bonds and interest on any other project or projects, such project shall continue to be operated as a toll facility at toll rates not less than the lowest rate being charged on any project, until all bonds issued by the Authority and the interest thereon shall have been paid or such provisions for payment made.
The revenues of such paid-out projects shall be used and applied by the Authority in paying the obligations or depositing in the sinking fund of such other turnpike projects in the following order: (a) To any project or projects in default on interest: (b) to any project or projects in default on principal; (c) to any project or projects having insufficient reserves or sinking fund under its trust agreement. If all such other projects have sufficient reserves then the revenues from such paid-out project shall be prorated between such other projects on the basis of the outstanding bonds of each project. If two or more projects fall within any of the above categories, then the revenues shall be prorated between them on the basis of the outstanding bonds of each project.
Considering how much it must cost just to maintain Oklahoma's turnpike network, I imagine that "Legal-ese" is just a formal way of spelling out how the turnpikes will never pay for themselves and make way for toll gates to be removed.
At the same time if any state politician can manage to arrange it, the toll gates on all of Oklahoma's turnpikes could be removed very quickly. The voters/motorists just have to realize they're going to be paying for those roads one way or another. There is no free ride. The toll gates can come down if Oklahoma's residents can stomach a pretty serious tax increase at the gasoline pumps. It's pretty much an either-or situation. That especially goes for how the federal government isn't funding super highways the way it did decades ago. Oklahoma's turnpike users might actually need to see how much tolls cost on a lot of other toll roads elsewhere in the country. Our turnpikes are pretty cheap on a toll per mile basis compared to a lot of other roads.
That sounds about as practical as making everyone use horse-drawn carriages for long trips.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 06, 2016, 12:32:37 AM
At the same time if any state politician can manage to arrange it, the toll gates on all of Oklahoma's turnpikes could be removed very quickly. The voters/motorists just have to realize they're going to be paying for those roads one way or another. There is no free ride. The toll gates can come down if Oklahoma's residents can stomach a pretty serious tax increase at the gasoline pumps. It's pretty much an either-or situation.
I'm sure you can agree that in Oklahoma's political climate this is exceedingly unlikely to happen. The Fallin administration is so stridently anti-tax that at one point she was floating a plan to abolish the state income tax.
It's a good thing that we have OTA to fall back on whenever we need a new road, because ODOT can't be relied on to get it done.
I've taken the Creek Turnpike only a couple of times when there was a destination South of Tulsa I was visiting, such as the new Warren Theater complex. If I'm passing through Tulsa I usually just stay on I-44. It's a must more straight, direct route.
The Creek Turnpike was built with a far too crooked and winding path, much like many new freeways and tollways. It's a huge reason why I-69 is a giant waste and will benefit only local and regional traffic between Indianapolis and the Texas border.
Traffic on I-44 between OKC and Wichita Falls is pretty steady and getting heavier between Chickasha and OKC. The H.E. Bailey Turnpike comprises most of that route.
Traffic is pretty light on the H.E. Bailey Turnpike extension. If the turnpike extension had been built correctly (the Eastern leg going all the way to I-35 and Norman and the NW leg going at least up to Mustang if not all the way to I-40) it would be getting a great deal more traffic and be more profitable for OTA. As it stands, if I'm driving from Lawton to Norman it's going to be a toss-up for me on whether to use the H.E. Bailey Turnpike extension or just shun-pike it by leaving I-44 at Chickasha. There is no mileage savings by using the turnpike extension, just a higher speed limit (and toll to go with it).
I don't know how much use the little curvy, crooked extension of the Kilpatrick Turnpike will get once it is finished. It sure won't deliver the kind of benefit to the region that a proper loop down through Mustang and over to Norman would have delivered. The I-44, I-240 and Airport Road zone on OKC's SW side is already a traffic clusterf**k. It's too bad the Kilpatrick couldn't offer a Western bypass to that mess. I would have used that quite a bit to get from Lawton to Edmond. Under the current and proposed design there's no reason for me to use it at all. I'll keep taking I-44 to Hefner Parkway or Broadway Extension instead.
I will admit to having paid the Creek Turnpike 'fuck-it tax' to bypass Tulsa whenever I had the money when I was traveling between Goldsby and Springfield. Despite not saving much time and costing a lot, it was worth it to avoid the horrifically outdated, dangerous sections of I-44 in Tulsa proper. Now that they've fixed some of those, it's not as bad, so I would be less keen to use 364.
The reason they keep working on the Turnpikes is so they will never not be working on them. Thus the toll roads will never be free
Have you done any price comparisons with the tolls in Oklahoma's turnpikes versus those in other states? The tolls here are a bargain compared to what you'll pay on some other toll roads, even all the ones just across the Red River in Texas. The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority has over 600 turnpike miles to maintain just by what it is charging in tolls rather than getting any taxpayer help. Drivers here should be thankful they're not paying quite a lot more. I don't think the arguably modest and infrequent price hikes we've seen on the turnpikes here have been keeping pace with construction cost inflation.
By the way, just about every super highway in the nation of any significant length has construction and maintenance projects going on constantly. Wear and tear makes that a process that absolutely will never end. It makes no difference if the road has tolls on it or if it is "free" (funded by taxes).
Exorbitant compared to what specifically? Please provide some actual numbers to show how Oklahoma is price gouging taxpayers on tolls or gas taxes compared to other states.
If I recall correctly, Oklahoma hasn't budged the gasoline tax at all since the last time the federal government raised it in the early 1990's. Road construction and maintenance costs are a hell of a lot higher now than they were in 1993. Tolls have gone up, infrequently, since then. Still, the cost per mile for tolls in Oklahoma are among the least costly in the nation. Try driving around the Eastern Seaboard states and pay some of the turnpike and bridge tolls up there. I laughed out loud with amazement when I saw what it costs to drive on E-470 around the East side of Denver. Come back to Oklahoma and tolls here will make it almost seem like you're driving on the turnpikes for free.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 08, 2016, 08:45:07 PM
Exorbitant compared to what specifically? Please provide some actual numbers to show how Oklahoma is price gouging taxpayers on tolls or gas taxes compared to other states.
If I recall correctly, Oklahoma hasn't budged the gasoline tax at all since the last time the federal government raised it in the early 1990's. Road construction and maintenance costs are a hell of a lot higher now than they were in 1993. Tolls have gone up, infrequently, since then. Still, the cost per mile for tolls in Oklahoma are among the least costly in the nation. Try driving around the Eastern Seaboard states and pay some of the turnpike and bridge tolls up there. I laughed out loud with amazement when I saw what it costs to drive on E-470 around the East side of Denver. Come back to Oklahoma and tolls here will make it almost seem like you're driving on the turnpikes for free.
Yep. Oklahoma tolls are cheap. I can drive from OKC to the Texas line on I-44–something like 100 miles–for less than five bucks. A similar trip in Kansas (Mulvane to Emporia) costs a tiny bit more at $5.25 cash. A comparable trip in Illinois (I-90 from Wisconsin to Chicago) costs $7.90 cash. Let's take it further away: the 75 miles of toll road between Nuevo Laredo and Monterrey (in northern México) costs $205, which at the current exchange rate is around ten bucks–twice the price of a longer trip in Oklahoma in a nation where minimum wage is under five bucks a day.
If riding the bus and train was really more attractive to residents in all of America's big cities that have both options available hardly anyone would mess around with driving. The truth is Americans love their cars and the independence it gives them to move about on their own schedule. It can be a real pain in the ass dealing with bus and train schedules.
I lived in New York City for 5 years and used its mass transit system to get back and forth between Staten Island and Manhattan. It took me at least 90 minutes each way to get back and forth between home and college/work using a combination of the bus on Staten Island, ferry to get to Manhattan and subway once I was in Manhattan. This was despite the fact I could take a short walk from my house to the narrows and literally see the area in Manhattan I'd commute to each day. I can drive between Lawton and OKC in less time than my NYC commute time.
We have a bus system here in Lawton. The only people who use it are those who have no other choice. Using the bus to commute to work, the store, etc. adds a whole lot more time to a trip. Plus you're never dropped off at your destination. You're going to be hoofing it in the elements (such as the winter cold) and be waiting in the elements at the bus stop. There's nothing very appealing about that.
This statement about mass transit being "cheaper" is really stretching the truth, if not just plain wrong. For instance New York City has been trying for decades to build the 2nd Ave. subway line. The cost of it has been ballooning out of control, despite the fact some of the tunneling work had been completed decades ago and previously abandoned. Right now the cost of the 8.5 mile line has risen to $17 billion and will likely just keep going up and up. The MTA is behind schedule just getting the $4.5 billion first phase done, which will may miss the Dec. 31 deadline this year. Other subways and light rail systems elsewhere in the U.S. are notorious for very high construction costs, cost overruns and missed targets on ridership that necessitates infusions of taxpayer money to keep operations afloat.
Bus systems are cheaper to run than subway/light rail systems. But they still require roads just like all those passenger cars. And no one really likes taking the bus either.
Bicycling has its own problems. Riders have the benefit of getting some exercise. But they're riding out in the elements. Worse, they're often being forced to ride among car drivers who won't be bothered with sharing the road. They're often engrossed in their phones or other distractions in the car, threatening the lives of bike riders and pedestrians. Some also act with hostility towards bicyclists, thinking the bike rider is part of some pinko, liberal, socialist conspiracy.
Why would Oklahoma ever want to get rid of the tolls? From what I see they are getting a ton of money from not only in-state, but also out of state drivers and they don't have to use very much (if any) tax dollars to maintain them.
If I recall correctly toll roads can't double dip on taxpayers and toll gates. The highway has to be funded exclusively with tolls or tax dollars, not both.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 12, 2016, 11:22:44 AM
If riding the bus and train was really more attractive to residents in all of America's big cities that have both options available hardly anyone would mess around with driving. The truth is Americans love their cars and the independence it gives them to move about on their own schedule. It can be a real pain in the ass dealing with bus and train schedules.
This is so true. I'd also like to add that suburban sprawl isn't necessary a bad thing. If it was,
nobody would buy houses in suburbia! But that's not the case; most people don't like living close to the city, and besides, housing in an urban area is often pretty expensive, and most families can only afford a larger house out in the suburbs.
So you're a big fan of mass transit, but only when it is "serviceable and reliable?" That sounds kind of vague.
New York City has the largest, most widespread mass transit system in the country. It has by far the biggest subway network and also has countless numbers of bus lines canvassing all 5 boroughs. Add to that the Long Island Railroad, New Jersey Transit and Metro North rail service that connects to dozens of other bus systems. The Staten Island Ferry is also heavily used.
Even with all those service options there's still plenty of downsides. Using those services your commute will take a long time. There is no way around that. There's also no avoiding being stuck out in the weather, be it waiting at a bus stop, waiting on a train platform or walking to your destination. Park and Ride takes out only part of that problem, provided there is enough parking spaces at the station.
I knew a lot of people who didn't want to screw with the subway. They took cabs around Manhattan. And back in the late 1980's and early 1990's when NYC was a far more dangerous (yet more affordable) place I couldn't blame them for doing so. I also knew people who insisted on driving to and from Manhattan regardless of the bridge/tunnel tolls and parking garage costs. Even though traffic could get jammed up bad it was rare for their driving trips to take any longer than my 3 hours on mass transit every day.
I think a lot of these "new urbanists" have a very romanticized notion of using mass transit (as well as walking and riding bikes). I wonder if they've ever been crammed like sardines into a subway car or city bus, smelling the B.O. and bad breath of other passengers. I wonder if they've had to hoof it several blocks or more in blistering cold or on a windy rainy day.
I have my doubts people who romanticize mass transit bother to think about the realities of the "mass" part of mass transit. When you're on a crowded bus or subway train your fart becomes everybody's fart.
Lots of people have things to carry back and forth between home and work (brief case, computer bag, etc.). It's a hassle enough just carrying around that stuff. But holding onto it while pushing through a crowd of people is tougher. It's not the easiest keeping that stuff from invading the personal space of others on subway or bus seats.
During my commutes to/from art school I had to haul a big portfolio case and a lunch box size case of art supplies. It sure wasn't fun leaving the Staten Island Ferry Terminal for the Bowling Green subway station and have wind blasting out of Broadway's skyscraper canyon. The portfolio case worked great as an air foil. There were lots of days I'd stay in Manhattan an extra hour or two just so I could travel back home when it wasn't so crushing busy.
An empty bus or subway train is just as bad a problem. It causes the transit authority to lose money and then go begging to the government for subsidies.
There's a very strong chance driver-less vehicles will dramatically shake up the business model for all modes of transportation within the next 5-10 years.
Some are predicting a lot of Americans will give up buying vehicles to keep in their own driveways, opting for a ride in one of these automated vehicles instead. I think that's a bit of a stretch; however, the insane high prices of new cars could push many in that direction out of economics.
If I'm able to buy a car that can drive itself that would make certain long distance road trips far more feasible. Imagine being able to toss your bags into the car late at night, punch in a destination several hundred miles away, stretch out in the back and go to sleep. When you wake up your car is finishing the trip. I think I'd rather do that than deal with the price gouging circus that makes up air travel.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 08, 2016, 08:45:07 PM
Exorbitant compared to what specifically? Please provide some actual numbers to show how Oklahoma is price gouging taxpayers on tolls or gas taxes compared to other states.
If I recall correctly, Oklahoma hasn't budged the gasoline tax at all since the last time the federal government raised it in the early 1990's. Road construction and maintenance costs are a hell of a lot higher now than they were in 1993. Tolls have gone up, infrequently, since then. Still, the cost per mile for tolls in Oklahoma are among the least costly in the nation. Try driving around the Eastern Seaboard states and pay some of the turnpike and bridge tolls up there. I laughed out loud with amazement when I saw what it costs to drive on E-470 around the East side of Denver. Come back to Oklahoma and tolls here will make it almost seem like you're driving on the turnpikes for free.
Eastern Seaboard guy here:
Really, the reasons why tolls are more steep here is because of you're able to shunpike most routes. If I had time, I could shunpike the entire PA Turnpike via US 30. Heck, despite the fact that it costs
$17 to get inside New York City, you can sacrifice an hour and get inside New York for a whole $5 (via Tappan Zee Bridge, $6.25 to ride the Thruway to its end). If you really don't want to pay tolls, you can skip the last toll barrier and get off scot free.
Point is, here in the Northeast, if you don't want to pay tolls, just set aside an hour and seek another route (I know, post is a week old).
My family and me use the Indian Nation turnpike all the time.
I don't think I'd like driverless cars. I can't wait until I am able to drive. I also wouldn't want to live in ny. Riding the subway sounds like heck.
The Creek Turnpike was more useful as a bypass route when I-44 was still 4 lanes and clogged and dangerous. The Creek as it stands is mostly a local highway. It's quite useful when visiting destinations in southern BA and Jenks.
"I'm going to post 6 times in a row, and if the moderators combine my posts, it's an abuse of moderation tools."
Any sign between 11th and 412 that references "Liberty Parkway" would be erroneous anyway. This is the law that was passed by the Oklahoma Legislature and signed by the Oklahoma Governor in May 2003, designating the "Liberty Memorial Parkway" along a portion of the Creek Turnpike:
http://www.oklegislature.gov/cf_pdf/2003-04%20COMMITTEE%20SUBS/scs/sb350%20cs.pdf
I would argue that the way the bill is phrased, "Liberty Memorial Parkway" is merely an ancillary name, with "Creek Turnpike" still being the primary name of the roadway in that area anyway. It's like I-15 through Montana is designated the "Vietnam Veterans Highway" - same situation. That doesn't make it not I-15. One city council agenda referencing it once as "Liberty Parkway" is hardly compelling evidence that the road is primarily known by that name.
In fact, just for shits, here's three more Broken Arrow City Council Meeting Agendas posted around the same time that reference that same stretch of road (the south loop of the Creek Turnpike) as "Creek Turnpike":
http://brokenarrow.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=brokenarrow_407581ddf03f159efe75ea5ebcb88df8.pdf&view=1
http://brokenarrow.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=brokenarrow_ccd43b966af6ab081cb07e5df3b9ce5d.pdf&view=1
http://brokenarrow.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=407
I've been thus far unable to find a single other reference where the city of Broken Arrow calls it "Liberty Parkway" or "Liberty Memorial Parkway"
Here is a group of pictures I took of the Creek Turnpike from I-44/US 412 to 31st Street. Note that there is no such sign.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/watuzi/albums/72157637038630166/page2
Quote from: corco on May 15, 2017, 12:13:17 AM
I would argue that the way the bill is phrased, "Liberty Memorial Parkway" is merely an ancillary name, with "Creek Turnpike" still being the primary name of the roadway in that area anyway. It's like I-15 through Montana is the "Vietnam Veterans Highway" - same situation. That doesn't make it not I-15. One set of city council minutes referencing it once as "Liberty Parkway" is hardly compelling evidence that the road is primarily known by that name.
Hell, even if it IS a formal name (doesn't appear so, as it's effectively unposted), doesn't mean it's the primary name. How many people do you figure refer to I-270 in Columbus as the "Jack Nickalus Freeway" or the New York Thruway as the "Malcom Wilson Thruway"? Zero. None. Nada. Both are the formal names.
Yes, that's the point. It's both, but "Creek Turnpike" is the terminology that is in far more common use - therefore that's a more appropriate name for the roadway. There are dozens of highways throughout the country designated with multiple names - in nearly every instance, the "through" name is the actual name, regardless of whether or not there are one or two signs with the secondary name along the route.
It's a ceremonial name. Why doesn't anyone call OK 51 the "42nd "˜Rainbow' Infantry Division Memorial Highway" ? Why don't you call US 64 the "Kit Carson Highway" ? Is the Keystone Expressway really the "Cimarron Highway" ? Is US 169 the " Pearl Harbor Memorial Expressway"? No, it's the "Mingo Valley Expressway" and has been for decades. If you keep referring to roads by obscure ancillary names then don't be surprised when the person you're giving directions to doesn't have a clue to what the hell you're talking about. You also need to remove these tertiary and quaternary names from the OSM if you don't want to confuse travelers looking for nonexistent signs or nobody will ever take it seriously (newsflash: everybody from tourists to cartographers think it's a total joke.)
You're wrong about the Creek having no traffic. Sure traffic is pretty light east of 51st but west of there it quickly picks up. It is downright heavy at times from 71st to US 75, er, the "American Wars Highway" .
Quote from: US71 on June 24, 2017, 09:21:46 PM
Besides, you know GPS isn't 100 percent reliable given the number of people who drive into brick walls.
Brick walls? I've heard about GPS directions using closed mountain roads covered with snow, covered bridges (cars are fine, but trucks will destroy the bridge), the infamous 11'8" bridge... but no walls where a road never existed.
I've seen news stories of people driving down into deep ravines because the road ended at a "T" intersection but GPS said the road continued through the intersection.
Then there's the infamous story of when the Kansas Turnpike ended at a gravel section line road at the Oklahoma border. There were large stop signs and warning signs, but some drivers continued through the intersection and ended up in a farmer's field.
Quote from: bugo on June 25, 2017, 06:40:37 PM
Then there's the infamous story of when the Kansas Turnpike ended at a gravel section line road at the Oklahoma border. There were large stop signs and warning signs, but some drivers continued through the intersection and ended up in a farmer's field.
KTA eventually gave up and closed all of the Turnpike between the state line and exit 4 until I-35 was built in Oklahoma.
Before then, the plan was for Oklahoma to build a connecting turnpike to OKC, but OTA's credit score was shot from building the Turner Turnpike and they were unable to get financing for construction. All of the surveying and design work that had been completed for the turnpike was turned over to the Department of Highways when the Interstate System was created.
Here's something that has never been answered: Why were the turnpikes built in the 1960s and 1970s built to the same standard as the Turner and Will Rogers turnpikes were built to in the 1950s? The Bailey, Muskogee, Indian Nation and Cimarron turnpikes were built with the narrow grassy median and no left shoulders. Interstates built by ODOT weren't designed like this. Why was the OTA still building their turnpikes using outdated specifications?
Quote from: bugo on June 27, 2017, 01:00:11 AM
Here's something that has never been answered: Why were the turnpikes built in the 1960s and 1970s built to the same standard as the Turner and Will Rogers turnpikes were built to in the 1950s? The Bailey, Muskogee, Indian Nation and Cimarron turnpikes were built with the narrow grassy median and no left shoulders. Interstates built by ODOT weren't designed like this. Why was the OTA still building their turnpikes using outdated specifications?
That is a very interesting question.
My guess, based on no evidence, is that because those later turnpikes were not intended to carry an Interstate designation, OTA felt there was no need to build them to Interstate standards, and continued using their early 50s standards. Unfortunately, it seems like the sort of question whose answer would be found in some memorandum laying around in OTA archives somewhere, unless a spokesman happened to go on record and mention it in a newspaper article.
My research so far has been focused on the 1990s turnpikes and the Turner, so I haven't really had a chance to dig into the history of the 60s/70s turnpikes yet, unfortunately.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 27, 2017, 12:59:46 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 27, 2017, 01:00:11 AM
Here's something that has never been answered: Why were the turnpikes built in the 1960s and 1970s built to the same standard as the Turner and Will Rogers turnpikes were built to in the 1950s? The Bailey, Muskogee, Indian Nation and Cimarron turnpikes were built with the narrow grassy median and no left shoulders. Interstates built by ODOT weren't designed like this. Why was the OTA still building their turnpikes using outdated specifications?
That is a very interesting question.
My guess, based on no evidence, is that because those later turnpikes were not intended to carry an Interstate designation, OTA felt there was no need to build them to Interstate standards, and continued using their early 50s standards. Unfortunately, it seems like the sort of question whose answer would be found in some memorandum laying around in OTA archives somewhere, unless a spokesman happened to go on record and mention it in a newspaper article.
I agree. I also suspect they were trying to build them as cheaply as possible. That would also explain the substandard bridge clearances.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 26, 2017, 11:40:23 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 25, 2017, 06:40:37 PM
Then there's the infamous story of when the Kansas Turnpike ended at a gravel section line road at the Oklahoma border. There were large stop signs and warning signs, but some drivers continued through the intersection and ended up in a farmer's field.
KTA eventually gave up and closed all of the Turnpike between the state line and exit 4 until I-35 was built in Oklahoma.
Before then, the plan was for Oklahoma to build a connecting turnpike to OKC, but OTA's credit score was shot from building the Turner Turnpike and they were unable to get financing for construction. All of the surveying and design work that had been completed for the turnpike was turned over to the Department of Highways when the Interstate System was created.
https://www.pikepass.com/about/History.aspx
Quote
The Oklahoma Legislature passed SB 454 on June 8, 1953 amending HB 933, which had passed just a month earlier, adding authorization to build a Turnpike from Oklahoma City to Wichita Falls, Texas (later named the H.E. Bailey Turnpike) and a Turnpike from Oklahoma City to Wichita, Kansas (the approximate present day alignment of Interstate 35 to Oklahoma City to Wichita).
It is the only mention I could find on their website.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 07, 2016, 10:58:41 AM
I've taken the Creek Turnpike only a couple of times when there was a destination South of Tulsa I was visiting, such as the new Warren Theater complex. If I'm passing through Tulsa I usually just stay on I-44. It's a must more straight, direct route.
The Creek Turnpike was built with a far too crooked and winding path, much like many new freeways and tollways. It's a huge reason why I-69 is a giant waste and will benefit only local and regional traffic between Indianapolis and the Texas border.
The Creek Turnpike was a lot more useful as an I-44 bypass before I-44 was rebuilt in midtown Tulsa. Since they rebuilt it, you're usually better off staying on I-44 unless you come through during rush hour.