US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma

[Bobby5280]

The main problem with 5-lane "quasi-divided" facilities is that while they do have the effect of increasing capacity over a conventional 2-lane highway while maintaining full local access (more often than not a driving factor in the decision to deploy them), they tend to attract additional roadside facilities to those segments, making it more difficult to (a) upgrade them later into a freeway+frontage situation or (b) effect a bypass without going far afield from the existing route.

In this case the current road is a 4-lane undivided road. The widening proposed to take place is minimal.

I'm sure local politics, essentially businesses not wanting to be bypassed by a new highway, influenced the decision.

They missed Anson. Do you know if TxDOT has any plans for a bypass?

I've always wondered about that. US-83 from Abilene up to Anson is 4-lane with flanking frontage roads. It could be easily upgraded to Interstate quality. The 4-laning project for US-277 between Wichita Falls and Anson took around 20 years to complete. Anson is kind of an important junction. US-83 and US-180 meet US-277 there. I can only guess that perhaps a bypass was proposed (likely on the East side of town) but shot down by town residents who didn't want local businesses to get bypassed.

You forgot I-2

At least I-2 has exit numbers showing a long term intention to be extended to Laredo. Considering how many people live in the Rio Grande Valley and Laredo areas I think I-2 has good chances of seeing much more development. It will probably be completed before any extension of I-44 happens. Hell, I-2 may be completed before I-69 in LA, AR and MS.

It's obvious that this interchange was supposed to be a full stack with an eastern extension of Kell passing just south of downtown. I would assume it would have followed TX447 but I'm not sure where it would have ended up. Does anyone know?

I saw some Wichita Falls city plans a long time ago showing an East Kell Freeway using the TX-447 route and going east to the oil facility on Harding Street. Obviously none of that materialized. They didn't build the flyover ramps at the end of Kell Freeway with any stubs for companion ramps going the opposite directions. They could improve US-287 access to the oil facility by modifying the first exit of TX-79 off US-287.

[In_Correct]

The main problem with 5-lane "quasi-divided" facilities is that while they do have the effect of increasing capacity over a conventional 2-lane highway while maintaining full local access (more often than not a driving factor in the decision to deploy them), they tend to attract additional roadside facilities to those segments, making it more difficult to (a) upgrade them later into a freeway+frontage situation or (b) effect a bypass without going far afield from the existing route.

In this case the current road is a 4-lane undivided road. The widening proposed to take place is minimal.

I'm sure local politics, essentially businesses not wanting to be bypassed by a new highway, influenced the decision.

They missed Anson. Do you know if TxDOT has any plans for a bypass?

I've always wondered about that. US-83 from Abilene up to Anson is 4-lane with flanking frontage roads. It could be easily upgraded to Interstate quality. The 4-laning project for US-277 between Wichita Falls and Anson took around 20 years to complete. Anson is kind of an important junction. US-83 and US-180 meet US-277 there. I can only guess that perhaps a bypass was proposed (likely on the East side of town) but shot down by town residents who didn't want local businesses to get bypassed.

You forgot I-2

At least I-2 has exit numbers showing a long term intention to be extended to Laredo. Considering how many people live in the Rio Grande Valley and Laredo areas I think I-2 has good chances of seeing much more development. It will probably be completed before any extension of I-44 happens. Hell, I-2 may be completed before I-69 in LA, AR and MS.

It's obvious that this interchange was supposed to be a full stack with an eastern extension of Kell passing just south of downtown. I would assume it would have followed TX447 but I'm not sure where it would have ended up. Does anyone know?

I saw some Wichita Falls city plans a long time ago showing an East Kell Freeway using the TX-447 route and going east to the oil facility on Harding Street. Obviously none of that materialized. They didn't build the flyover ramps at the end of Kell Freeway with any stubs for companion ramps going the opposite directions. They could improve US-287 access to the oil facility by modifying the first exit of TX-79 off US-287.

Too many progress being stopped by local residents ... such as the B.N.S.F. realignment with grade separation east of Valley View, future Interstates for Anson, and also south of Wichita Falls.

It would not be difficult to have Kell East Boulevard - S.H. 447 - Harding Street ... be upgraded to Boulevard to S.H. 79. S.H. 240 is all ready a Boulevard. S.H. 79 near U.S. 287 is a Freeway With Frontage Roads (Waurika Freeway) which could also be extended.

I had recommended the alignment east of the future Interstate 44, current U.S. 287, or U.S. 82 according to TX DOT ... which would easily connect the Holliday Bypass. The original alignment would be a Business Route, or the businesses could move to the Frontage Roads of the new alignment.

... or if TX DOT widened the current alignment, the businesses would stay roughly in the same place, only moved a few Meters to make room for Frontage Roads.

Instead, the lack of progress is no longer limited to The Unfinished Corridor (Future Interstate 45) .

Perhaps roads will be improved in a few years.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^
Since the US 287 corridor from Electra through the TX 79 junction is already a full freeway and would ostensibly be utilized (with appropriate upgrades as necessary) for any Interstate-grade corridor along that route, the in-town Wichita Falls segment is essentially complete as to ROW; likewise any extension of I-44 (discussed in another thread) except for portions west of the Kell Freeeway terminus.  The general lack of progress on such regional corridors can at least partially be attributed to the lack of a coordinated effort to establish a defined entity there.  The I-69 backers, the Port-to-Plains boosters, and even the folks behind I-14 got out there, browbeat the relevant legislators, and got their corridors on the books and in the developmental queue.  When it comes to US 69/75 in OK, US 287 in TX, and even US 277 as an I-44 extension, similar effort -- and just basic "doing homework" would be the prerequisite for any concerted action.  Of course, obstacles like Stringtown and the Muskogee naysayers, with the previously witnessed political implications, will have to be either overcome, outflanked/outmaneuvered, or simply outwaited (although the latter would likely have inflationary consequences).  Nevertheless, the first step is to define the corridor.  US 69 in OK and US 287 in TX should readily lend themselves to such a definition as currently established commercial arteries with relatively high AADT data.  Next is to legislatively establish a federal high-priority corridor.  This step is simply a formalization of the definition; in and of itself it only promises eligibility for maximal federal dollar input -- nothing more.  Finally, legislatively append an Interstate number to said corridor.  Obviously, 45 would be the optimal selection for DFW-Big Cabin (and the Red River to I-40 segment already is federally "preapproved" as a future Interstate via Section 1174 of 1991's ISTEA); I personally like an I-30 western extension for US 287, although some posters demur, preferring I-32 or I-34 for that route. 

But the first step is for the backers of any given corridor concept to get their act together and concertedly press for recognition.  Little if anything arises from hit-and-miss efforts less than that!   

[bugo]

I hope ODOT is still going to eliminate the at-grade intersection at Preston.

I didn't know there were plans to fix it. Are they building an overpass or an actual interchange?

[rte66man]

I hope ODOT is still going to eliminate the at-grade intersection at Preston.

I didn't know there were plans to fix it. Are they building an overpass or an actual interchange?

Full diamond interchange. It's on the 8 Year plan to be built in FFY 2024

[Bobby5280]

Since the US 287 corridor from Electra through the TX 79 junction is already a full freeway and would ostensibly be utilized (with appropriate upgrades as necessary) for any Interstate-grade corridor along that route, the in-town Wichita Falls segment is essentially complete as to ROW; likewise any extension of I-44 (discussed in another thread) except for portions west of the Kell Freeway terminus.

TX-79 coming off of US-287 on the SE side of Wichita Falls is a real odd ball of a "freeway." The interchange of TX-79 and US-287 is partially limited access. Two of the movements have to use the Hammond Road exit and frontage roads in that weird configuration. The TX-79 freeway has one exit at Scott Street before dovetailing into Petrolia Rd with a strange at-grade intersection.

One thing I don't like about the TX-79 freeway stub: it doesn't provide very good access to the Plains Pipeline oil storage facility. A fully fleshed out Spur 447 freeway (continuing Kell Freeway on East by downtown Wichita Falls) would provide more direct access. But the downside is there is a residential neighborhood East of downtown and they probably wouldn't like a bunch of oil business trucks driving through there. But they probably already do so anyway.

[bugo]

I hope ODOT is still going to eliminate the at-grade intersection at Preston.

I didn't know there were plans to fix it. Are they building an overpass or an actual interchange?

[Plutonic Panda]

I hope ODOT is still going to eliminate the at-grade intersection at Preston.

I didn't know there were plans to fix it. Are they building an overpass or an actual interchange?

interchange

[sparker]

Since the US 287 corridor from Electra through the TX 79 junction is already a full freeway and would ostensibly be utilized (with appropriate upgrades as necessary) for any Interstate-grade corridor along that route, the in-town Wichita Falls segment is essentially complete as to ROW; likewise any extension of I-44 (discussed in another thread) except for portions west of the Kell Freeway terminus.

TX-79 coming off of US-287 on the SE side of Wichita Falls is a real odd ball of a "freeway." The interchange of TX-79 and US-287 is partially limited access. Two of the movements have to use the Hammond Road exit and frontage roads in that weird configuration. The TX-79 freeway has one exit at Scott Street before dovetailing into Petrolia Rd with a strange at-grade intersection.

One thing I don't like about the TX-79 freeway stub: it doesn't provide very good access to the Plains Pipeline oil storage facility. A fully fleshed out Spur 447 freeway (continuing Kell Freeway on East by downtown Wichita Falls) would provide more direct access. But the downside is there is a residential neighborhood East of downtown and they probably wouldn't like a bunch of oil business trucks driving through there. But they probably already do so anyway.

I was referring simply to the US 287 ROW between the cited points being the default site of a potential E-W Interstate corridor along that route; I'm aware of the strange configurations of the various "freeway-to-freeway" interchanges in the area and their nonconformities and limitations (if it's weird, it must be Wichita Falls!).  Of course there area significant upgrades required for anything approaching Interstate standards -- but the basic ROW is there; the upgrades wouldn't likely require any substantial property taking unless one or more interchanges would be fully expanded to a stack. 

[rte66man]

I hope ODOT is still going to eliminate the at-grade intersection at Preston.

I didn't know there were plans to fix it. Are they building an overpass or an actual interchange?

interchange

https://www.odot.org/projmgmt/poi/Division%201/Project%20Status%20Report%20-%20Okmulgee%20Co%2030571(04).pdf

[Plutonic Panda]

I hope ODOT is still going to eliminate the at-grade intersection at Preston.

I didn't know there were plans to fix it. Are they building an overpass or an actual interchange?

interchange

https://www.odot.org/projmgmt/poi/Division%201/Project%20Status%20Report%20-%20Okmulgee%20Co%2030571(04).pdf

i wonder what the status of the bypass project in Muskogee is. Hopefully it isn't dead but I have not heard anything about it and it was taken down from odots website.

[sparker]

I hope ODOT is still going to eliminate the at-grade intersection at Preston.

I didn't know there were plans to fix it. Are they building an overpass or an actual interchange?

interchange

https://www.odot.org/projmgmt/poi/Division%201/Project%20Status%20Report%20-%20Okmulgee%20Co%2030571(04).pdf

i wonder what the status of the bypass project in Muskogee is. Hopefully it isn't dead but I have not heard anything about it and it was taken down from odots website.

Pretty much "Breezewooded" to death.  There was such an outcry from businesses arrayed along the existing US 69 arterial (motels, restaurants, auto repair facilities, etc.) that made it to OKC that the project was infinitely shelved.  That seems to be a repeating theme along this corridor -- it seems some parties (in various venues) want the corridor to -- at least in sections -- be just inefficient enough to prompt travelers, commercial and otherwise, to think "gee...as long as I'm slowed down to a crawl, I may as well stop to (a) eat (b) fill up the tank (c) get some snacks for the road (d) pick up odds & ends thought of while driving, etc., etc."  Of course, the incentive's a bit different in Stringtown and other identified speed traps, but the concept's the same -- keep that low-lying fruit coming! 

And ODOT certainly doesn't want folks to know they bent over and took it from the Muskogee folks after many years of producing detailed studies and design for said bypass, so the project's been consigned to a filing cabinet well out of the public view. 

[Bobby5280]

At least there are still plans to improve US-69 in McAlester, convert the Nigh Expressway into a freeway. It will be a relatively simple upgrade since frontage roads already flank the main lanes. Perhaps there could be some chance the folks in Muskogee might get jealous of the finished project.

ODOT just needs to do freeway upgrades along US-69 where it can and not do squat in Atoka, Stringtown and Muskogee. Let them languish. The whole corridor can't be upgraded all at once anyway.

Improvements need to be made on the existing US-69/75 freeway in Durant to bring it up fully to Interstate standards. ODOT could bring US-69/75 up to Interstate standards from the Red River to Tushka (just South of Atoka) fairly easily. ODOT could potentially even sign the highway as an Interstate that far too. But let the Interstate designation run out before it reaches Atoka and Stringtown so they don't get any marketing benefit of being fully connected to the Interstate system. Over time more development and growth will take place where the highway is better.

The project in McAlester would be another staging point for addition incremental freeway upgrades to US-69. The McAlester US Army Ammunition Plant should have an Interstate quality connection. The current situation in Savanna outside the McAlester AAP main gate is kind of a mess. I'm not sure how you upgrade that other than making a short new terrain bypass.

I wonder if there are any plans on the books for a US-69 bypass for Wagoner, OK (just North of Muskogee). Same for Adair and Pryor Creek.

I think if ODOT does more to improve the more easily upgradeable sections of US-69 the end results will increase ever more pressure to get rid of the remaining "Breezewood" non-freeway sections.

[Ned Weasel]

Pretty much "Breezewooded" to death.  There was such an outcry from businesses arrayed along the existing US 69 arterial (motels, restaurants, auto repair facilities, etc.) that made it to OKC that the project was infinitely shelved.  That seems to be a repeating theme along this corridor -- it seems some parties (in various venues) want the corridor to -- at least in sections -- be just inefficient enough to prompt travelers, commercial and otherwise, to think "gee...as long as I'm slowed down to a crawl, I may as well stop to (a) eat (b) fill up the tank (c) get some snacks for the road (d) pick up odds & ends thought of while driving, etc., etc."  Of course, the incentive's a bit different in Stringtown and other identified speed traps, but the concept's the same -- keep that low-lying fruit coming! 

And ODOT certainly doesn't want folks to know they bent over and took it from the Muskogee folks after many years of producing detailed studies and design for said bypass, so the project's been consigned to a filing cabinet well out of the public view. 

I've said it before, but I really thing the "build a freeway bypass or do nothing" mentality is rather narrow-minded.  Why not explore options to upgrade the existing alignment of US 69 for better flow and higher speeds without building a full freeway?  It probably wouldn't be very difficult.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27580.0

But businesses would probably still protest, because businesses tend not to like access management, even when it actually helps them.

[In_Correct]

It probably wouldn't be very difficult.

Even in McAlester was resistance to highway upgrades. The original plan was to trench the highway, but the businesses said they wanted to be completely visible from the highway.

If Muskogee refuses a highway upgrade, let them finish upgrades elsewhere on The Unfinished Corridor.

Improvements need to be made on the existing US-69/75 freeway in Durant to bring it up fully to Interstate standards.

One of the highway upgrades is to grade separate (if they have not done it yet) The Choctaw Road in Durant / Calera. I have all ways been bothered with the Sports City Cafe located inside the Business Route Interchange. It is still visible in Google Maps, but in Street View the buildings are gone. Hopefully they will prohibit further property development inside the interchange. ... with the exception turning the old parking lot with trees in to a rest area, but to convert the ramps to One Way.

O.D.O.T. can also spend more money on other projects, such as connecting Ada to continuous 4 lane roads. The 8 Year Plan has a very slow project for Bowlegs and Wolf. Perhaps O.D.O.T. can build this project earlier than expected.

consigned to a filing cabinet well out of the public view

How often do they do this?

The way they are building the U.S. 377 bridge across Red River is from Texas to Oklahoma, suggesting that bridge would eventually be for The Northbound Lanes. When they remove the old bridge, it leaves a space for a second bridge containing The Southbound Lanes.

ODOT just needs to do freeway upgrades along US-69 where it can and not do squat in Atoka, Stringtown and Muskogee. Let them languish. The whole corridor can't be upgraded all at once anyway.

I wonder if Atoka is preventing upgrades for other highways such as S.H. 3 and S.H. 7 also or if they would welcome them.

[Bobby5280]

Even in McAlester was resistance to highway upgrades. The original plan was to trench the highway, but the businesses said they wanted to be completely visible from the highway.

Why would they have wanted to trench the freeway there? It would be a whole lot easier just building some main lane bridges to leap-frog the at-grade intersections and then build slip ramps to the existing frontage roads. They could even incorporate some "Texas U-Turns" into the intersection designs.

I wonder if Atoka is preventing upgrades for other highways such as S.H. 3 and S.H. 7 also or if they would welcome them.

There's no telling. But the old farts blocking progress aren't going to live forever. Atoka and Stringtown aren't exactly magnets for young adults either.

Here's how an Interstate upgrade along US-69 could proceed: build segments out from the existing Interstates. The upgraded segments can technically be signed as an Interstate since they would connect to an existing Interstate.

I-45 can potentially be signed up to the Red River; the road will be fully up to Interstate standards to Durant in the coming years. Just build that out farther up to Tushka and end the signing of I-45 there. Next segment: branch off I-40 both North and South at Checotah. Do any necessary upgrades to bring that existing freeway segment up to Interstate standards between the outskirts of Muskogee and McAlester. The upgraded Nigh Expressway in McAlester can be incorporated into the upgrade and signed thru McAlester as an Interstate (preferably I-45, IMHO). That southern terminus can end at the US-75 split. Or if possible go farther South to serve the McAlester AAP. Another Interstate segment can grow Southward from Big Cabin. In the end just about all the freeway would end up being built over the next 10, 20 or so years, leaving Muskogee, Atoka and Stringtown to suck hind tit while everything else on the corridor gets upgraded and signed as an Interstate.

[sparker]

Even in McAlester was resistance to highway upgrades. The original plan was to trench the highway, but the businesses said they wanted to be completely visible from the highway.

Why would they have wanted to trench the freeway there? It would be a whole lot easier just building some main lane bridges to leap-frog the at-grade intersections and then build slip ramps to the existing frontage roads. They could even incorporate some "Texas U-Turns" into the intersection designs.

I wonder if Atoka is preventing upgrades for other highways such as S.H. 3 and S.H. 7 also or if they would welcome them.

There's no telling. But the old farts blocking progress aren't going to live forever. Atoka and Stringtown aren't exactly magnets for young adults either.

Here's how an Interstate upgrade along US-69 could proceed: build segments out from the existing Interstates. The upgraded segments can technically be signed as an Interstate since they would connect to an existing Interstate.

I-45 can potentially be signed up to the Red River; the road will be fully up to Interstate standards to Durant in the coming years. Just build that out farther up to Tushka and end the signing of I-45 there. Next segment: branch off I-40 both North and South at Checotah. Do any necessary upgrades to bring that existing freeway segment up to Interstate standards between the outskirts of Muskogee and McAlester. The upgraded Nigh Expressway in McAlester can be incorporated into the upgrade and signed thru McAlester as an Interstate (preferably I-45, IMHO). That southern terminus can end at the US-75 split. Or if possible go farther South to serve the McAlester AAP. Another Interstate segment can grow Southward from Big Cabin. In the end just about all the freeway would end up being built over the next 10, 20 or so years, leaving Muskogee, Atoka and Stringtown to suck hind tit while everything else on the corridor gets upgraded and signed as an Interstate.

Not a bad basic concept -- but seeing as how the section between the TX line and I-40 at Checotah is federally pre-approved re section 1174 of ISTEA, with only the assent of ODOT required, it would be, considering the number of projects in the works within Bryan County (Durant) appropriate, in short order, to sign (ostensibly) I-45 from the TX line to the Bryan/Atoka county line, where it would stop; conversely, the Interstate could be signed from Checotah south to the end of construction at the south side of McAlester.  Personally, I wouldn't even attempt to sign it north of I-40; don't even give the Muskogee whiners a signed Interstate to their doorstep.  Eventually there will be enough folks asking why the two sections of I-45 aren't connected, and ODOT will have to hem & haw until the truth about Stringtown and their speed trap and Atoka with their Breezewood-esque pretensions is out in the open.  In short, sign what one can without having to go to the Fed well (the advantage of pre-approval); the state would get their 80% as a NHS corridor.  It might take a while, but the rest south of I-40 would eventually get done.  The sympathy factor re the Muskogee situation would have to be overcome both in the PR area and within ODOT and their political handlers before reconsideration of that bypass -- and the rest of US 69 north to I-44 -- could become reality.  Waiting until the aging motels and restaurants along current US 69 start going out of business on their own and then reintroducing the bypass -- possibly with some incentives for businesses to relocate to the bypass interchanges, altering the equation to a plus rather than the minus portrayed today.       

[rte66man]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I've seen the plans for the rebuild of the Savanna interchange into the Ammunition depot. I think it's scheduled to go out to bid early next year. I'll have to check. With all the scheduled projects in and around McAlester, it would be easy to sign 45 south past the Savanna interchange once they are completed.

The geometry of US69 from Calera to the Red River would need some improvement along with the removal of the last few at-grade intersections. Not cheap.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I've seen the plans for the rebuild of the Savanna interchange into the Ammunition depot. I think it's scheduled to go out to bid early next year. I'll have to check. With all the scheduled projects in and around McAlester, it would be easy to sign 45 south past the Savanna interchange once they are completed.

The geometry of US69 from Calera to the Red River would need some improvement along with the removal of the last few at-grade intersections. Not cheap.

If a full I-grade freeway could get as far south as the INT interchange (which would require rebuilding/modification in any case), that would be a decent start to such an overall project.  The prospect of traffic peeling off to use the INT (although "traffic" and the southern INT may well be an oxymoron!) as an alternate route into TX could have the result of encouraging activity toward completing the "missing link" between Caddo and the McAlester area. 

[rte66man]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I've seen the plans for the rebuild of the Savanna interchange into the Ammunition depot. I think it's scheduled to go out to bid early next year. I'll have to check. With all the scheduled projects in and around McAlester, it would be easy to sign 45 south past the Savanna interchange once they are completed.

The geometry of US69 from Calera to the Red River would need some improvement along with the removal of the last few at-grade intersections. Not cheap.

If a full I-grade freeway could get as far south as the INT interchange (which would require rebuilding/modification in any case), that would be a decent start to such an overall project.  The prospect of traffic peeling off to use the INT (although "traffic" and the southern INT may well be an oxymoron!) as an alternate route into TX could have the result of encouraging activity toward completing the "missing link" between Caddo and the McAlester area. 

The traffic will stay on 69 as most of it is headed to the DFW area and the INT isn't a viable alternative for that.  Most of 69 from 270 south to the INT is scheduled on the 8 Year Plan so, barring any COVID delays, we should be almost there by 2027 or so.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I've seen the plans for the rebuild of the Savanna interchange into the Ammunition depot. I think it's scheduled to go out to bid early next year. I'll have to check. With all the scheduled projects in and around McAlester, it would be easy to sign 45 south past the Savanna interchange once they are completed.

The geometry of US69 from Calera to the Red River would need some improvement along with the removal of the last few at-grade intersections. Not cheap.

If a full I-grade freeway could get as far south as the INT interchange (which would require rebuilding/modification in any case), that would be a decent start to such an overall project.  The prospect of traffic peeling off to use the INT (although "traffic" and the southern INT may well be an oxymoron!) as an alternate route into TX could have the result of encouraging activity toward completing the "missing link" between Caddo and the McAlester area. 

The traffic will stay on 69 as most of it is headed to the DFW area and the INT isn't a viable alternative for that.  Most of 69 from 270 south to the INT is scheduled on the 8 Year Plan so, barring any COVID delays, we should be almost there by 2027 or so.

Back in the early '90's when doing promotional product tours, I've used the INT, US 271, TX 24 and I-30 around Paris and Greenville a couple of times to get to DFW from I-44 or KC when it's apparent that work is being done on US 75, which tends to slow to a crawl when that happens.  While certainly not the most direct, it functions quite well in a pinch.  If portions of US 69 and/or 75 see multiple upgrades that utilize the present ROW (with the inevitable and invariable delays),  I would expect that the alternate eastern "arc" might see additional use, at least on an interim basis.   

[sparker]

Pretty much "Breezewooded" to death.  There was such an outcry from businesses arrayed along the existing US 69 arterial (motels, restaurants, auto repair facilities, etc.) that made it to OKC that the project was infinitely shelved.  That seems to be a repeating theme along this corridor -- it seems some parties (in various venues) want the corridor to -- at least in sections -- be just inefficient enough to prompt travelers, commercial and otherwise, to think "gee...as long as I'm slowed down to a crawl, I may as well stop to (a) eat (b) fill up the tank (c) get some snacks for the road (d) pick up odds & ends thought of while driving, etc., etc."  Of course, the incentive's a bit different in Stringtown and other identified speed traps, but the concept's the same -- keep that low-lying fruit coming! 

And ODOT certainly doesn't want folks to know they bent over and took it from the Muskogee folks after many years of producing detailed studies and design for said bypass, so the project's been consigned to a filing cabinet well out of the public view. 

I've said it before, but I really thing the "build a freeway bypass or do nothing" mentality is rather narrow-minded.  Why not explore options to upgrade the existing alignment of US 69 for better flow and higher speeds without building a full freeway?  It probably wouldn't be very difficult.

All it takes is a drive down the commercial section of the US 69 arterial through west Muskogee (which I've done several times) to determine that any substantial in situ improvement to expedite through traffic would be next to impossible without truncating much of the private-business access -- which is part and parcel of the gist of the bypass objections.  There are probably 80-100 private driveways along the commercialized stretch between the old rail underpass and the US 62 EB intersection to the north, along with several intersecting streets, some of them fully crossing US 69.  This isn't a city-center facility that can be readily "boulevardized"; it's a haphazardly developed configuration geared toward sucking business from both directions of traffic on the highway.   And there's just not enough available ROW to install any sort of frontage system without significant property-taking -- which would obviate the whole purpose of maintaining the current facility as the through route. 

So we're back to square one -- and the impasse that presently exists.  The only viable way to provide an efficient path for through traffic (the eastern ad hoc bypass of OK 165 and the Muskogee Turnpike notwithstanding) is with a facility such as the one that was shelved for the reasons cited earlier.  Absent a comprehensive method to subsidize a functional move by many of the current traffic-dependent businesses to the bypass interchange areas (and this is OK we're talking about!), that impasse will likely remain.  Obviously, with the S-curve with extra median space on US 69 south of town, ODOT expected a western bypass to be considered at one point -- so plans for such weren't likely a surprise to the locals -- but it is equally likely that they probably thought that, given ODOT's historic glacial pace, they had a few more years or even decades before one would be seriously and formally planned. 

If the current facility were configured differently, ROW upgrades might be feasible; but the jumbled and irregular current situation mitigates against such action -- and the local backlash might well be of similar volume and vehemence to that seen with the bypass plans.       

[Ned Weasel]

All it takes is a drive down the commercial section of the US 69 arterial through west Muskogee (which I've done several times) to determine that any substantial in situ improvement to expedite through traffic would be next to impossible without truncating much of the private-business access -- which is part and parcel of the gist of the bypass objections.  There are probably 80-100 private driveways along the commercialized stretch between the old rail underpass and the US 62 EB intersection to the north, along with several intersecting streets, some of them fully crossing US 69.  This isn't a city-center facility that can be readily "boulevardized"; it's a haphazardly developed configuration geared toward sucking business from both directions of traffic on the highway.   And there's just not enough available ROW to install any sort of frontage system without significant property-taking -- which would obviate the whole purpose of maintaining the current facility as the through route. 

I've driven down it more times than I can count.  I'm not talking about adding frontage roads; I don't think those are necessary.  Okay, your profile says you're from California, and I know they design roads a bit differently there than they do on the east coast, but browse some of the surface-level (or mostly surface-level) arterial highways in New Jersey, especially Central and North Jersey for some of the best examples.  Look at the way they do it there.  Barrier down the center, most left turns prohibited, many RIRO situations, and jughandles wherever possible for left turns and U turns.  Do those roads move as fast as the average freeway?  No.  But do they move better than a conventionally designed arterial road like you'd typically see anywhere between California and Oklahoma?  Yes, and I've seen it in person.

The Jersey Barrier is definitely feasible, because the space is already there.  The hard part is the jughandles.  ODOT would have to buy some vacant land for those, but there is some, and it would take much less land than a whole new freeway.  For other intersections, you'll probably have to settle for the less-than-ideal and keep some of the left-turn signal phases, but on the six-lane portion, those intersections definitely have enough space for cars to make U-turns easily.  Trucks would have to travel farther to make a U-turn, however.

Sometime soon, I'm going to work on a diagram of how I'd upgrade the 35-MPH section (most of the section you describe).  Long story short, you can do upgrades, and I think they'd be worth it even if they fall short of an ideal expressway.

If the current facility were configured differently, ROW upgrades might be feasible; but the jumbled and irregular current situation mitigates against such action -- and the local backlash might well be of similar volume and vehemence to that seen with the bypass plans.       

I'm aware that that may be an obstacle.

[Bobby5280]

Personally, I wouldn't even attempt to sign it north of I-40; don't even give the Muskogee whiners a signed Interstate to their doorstep.  Eventually there will be enough folks asking why the two sections of I-45 aren't connected, and ODOT will have to hem & haw until the truth about Stringtown and their speed trap and Atoka with their Breezewood-esque pretensions is out in the open.

I think it would be good to sign an upgraded US-69 as an Interstate highway wherever it is possible to do so. That way the gaps are a little more jarring. If it was up to me I would even add big yellow "Freeway Ends" signs to warn about the highway quality down-grade fixing to take place.

The two non-Interstate gaps on US-69 would be pretty big for quite some time with the upgrade scenario I proposed. The US-69 freeway could be signed as I-45 from Checotah to the Southern outskirts of Muskogee. But the segment coming down from Big Cabin would take a lot more work before it would arrive at Muskogee's Northern door step. McAlester down to Tushka would be the other big gap. Bits and pieces within the gaps could be upgraded to Interstate quality but not signed as an Interstate. The entire process would take decades to complete. During that time the folks in Muskogee, Atoka, etc might get sick of the increasing amount of semi truck traffic pounding the local surface streets.

I've seen the plans for the rebuild of the Savanna interchange into the Ammunition depot. I think it's scheduled to go out to bid early next year. I'll have to check. With all the scheduled projects in and around McAlester, it would be easy to sign 45 south past the Savanna interchange once they are completed.

Do the upgrade plans for that interchange include a limited access upgrade to the Indian Nation Turnpike? An equally good question is if there is any plan to get a freeway thru or around Savanna to the South side. That could get the upgrade completed down to Kiowa.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would venture a guess that any plans that involved a median barrier on the existing US 69 street facility would meet with howls of objections from the businesses along that route.  Those on the east side of the highway would piss & moan about their not being directly or readily accessible to SB traffic -- and vice-versa.  Although in reality it likely wouldn't work out that way, the prospect of losing up to 50% of one's business might not provide much in the way of salability when such a plan is presented locally. 

Just a guess -- ODOT won't do a damn thing re the Muskogee section of US 69!  The bypass plan being summarily shot down by outcries from these same locals will likely render the agency "gun-shy" about any change to the status quo.  If called on the carpet about inaction down the line, they can simply point to these local activists and state that it was their decisions and activities that led to a continuation of a situation.  And they might well be correct -- despite the potential for traffic incidents under an uncontrolled-movement situation, the businesspersons owning & operating those roadside establishments may not see it as a pressing issue as long as customers can reach their front doors with relative efficiency.   First rule of public policy -- don't be seen as taking away or inhibiting that taken for granted by potentially affected parties.  De facto standards -- for better or worse -- tend to be taken into account by the public at least as much as de jure "official" criteria as formulated within public-sector circles.  If the potential benefits accrued from modifying US 69 through Muskogee for the sake of through traffic efficiency are viewed -- even anecdotally absent detailed data -- as detrimental to the businesses arrayed along that stretch, in all likelihood such modifications wouldn't see the light of day if the implementing agency is in any way sensitive to local public opinion -- and the actions regarding the bypass demonstrate that this is indeed the case here.