Print

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

[Plutonic Panda]

They will also likely have to address the segment through Greenwood and come up with a long term plan which would be great if they could tunnel it but at minimum something will need to be done to address that issue. So it seems like the segment through Tulsa will have some issues to work out but should be fairly simple as long as they can get the money.

There's nothing to address. The neighborhood isn't there anymore. That ship sailed 50 years ago. This is a bunch of nothing.

I disagree. It’s an urban stretch of interstate that needs to be redesign. The better fit the needs of the neighborhood it replaced even if it isn’t there anymore. You can’t just destroy a neighborhood and then say hey, there’s no concern valid because the neighborhood we destroyed isn’t there anymore. That’s ridiculous.

Trying to "reconnect" something that hasn't existed in two generations is much more ridiculous. There's literally one church and a college north of the highway. I don't think the folks who live in the gentrified apartments at Greenwood and Archer are going to be walking to an African American church, and if they did, the underpass is wide open and lit up at night.

Your suggestion is about as ridiculous as saying that they should build a tunnel through Sideling Hill, even though the roadcut has been there for decades. The hill is no longer there, so you wouldn't be preserving or reconnecting anything, because what was once there is gone forever.

Have you ever been to this part of Tulsa?

I’ve been to it but I only drove through it on the interstate. I’ve seen pictures. It really is more about spurring development than reconnecting the neighborhood that isn’t there anymore.

[sprjus4]

As far as I know, the I-45 extension would only be up to 412, hence the interchange redesign. A future extension up to I-44 might be in the cards, but as another said there isn't much development north of Pryor requiring an interstate.

An interstate terminating at US-412 would not make any sense, given the majority of freight traffic on US-69 is destined to I-44 East.

You still need bypasses / upgrades of Chouteau, Pryor, Adair, and Big Cabin plus any traffic signals removed, to create just simply a free-flowing route without controlled access in the rural areas north of US-412. Until it’s a free-flowing expressway at minimum up to I-44, the need to upgrade those areas will still exist regardless of I-45 or not.

[swake]

As far as I know, the I-45 extension would only be up to 412, hence the interchange redesign. A future extension up to I-44 might be in the cards, but as another said there isn't much development north of Pryor requiring an interstate.

An interstate terminating at US-412 would not make any sense, given the majority of freight traffic on US-69 is destined to I-44 East.

You still need bypasses / upgrades of Chouteau, Pryor, Adair, and Big Cabin plus any traffic signals removed, to create just simply a free-flowing route without controlled access in the rural areas north of US-412. Until it’s a free-flowing expressway at minimum up to I-44, the need to upgrade those areas will still exist regardless of I-45 or not.

That's a lot of bypasses on that route and those towns do not want the highway upgraded. That's why it would make more sense to route I-45 to Tulsa on the Indian Nations Turpike north of McAlester and onto US-75.

US-75 south of Tulsa also needs to be upgraded, but those upgrades are going to happen anyway. The Glenpool section has ROW and Utility moves on ODOTs 8 year plan.The section between Okmulgee and Glenpool doesn't have that many at grade crossings and the and an interchange is being built now at the busiest crossing.

The hard part will be a bypass around Okmulgee but that simply has to be done. All those truck traveling between Tulsa and Dallas right through the heart of Okmulgee increases Dallas/Tulsa travel time by least 30 minutes and is simply not safe. There are currently nine stop lights on US-75 in Okmulgee.

[Bobby5280]

For that area, I could see them using the existing interchange, then veering to the west on new alignment north of the interchange area, and still bypassing the town.

They couldn't just re-build the US-69/US-412 interchange as a run of the mill cloverleaf. But a cloverleaf seems likely given ODOT's habits. There would be serious merging conflict issues if there was a cloverleaf interchange and then a "Y" interchange within a close distance of each other. ODOT would have to design a more creative solution to veer the US-69 main lanes at an angle thru the interchange to bend traffic flow into the direction of a new bypass.

As far as I know, the I-45 extension would only be up to 412, hence the interchange redesign.

It would be a wasted effort if an extension of I-45 into Oklahoma ended unceremoniously at US-412. I could imagine a phase of an I-45 extension ending there for a certain amount of time.

The enormous amount of heavy truck traffic coming up from the DFW area is not going to hang a left or right on US-412. It's going to keep heading North to Big Cabin just like it's doing right now.

That's a lot of bypasses on that route and those towns do not want the highway upgraded. That's why it would make more sense to route I-45 to Tulsa on the Indian Nations Turnpike north of McAlester and onto US-75.

ODOT does not have to build bypasses within the city limits of any towns along US-69. Considering the pretty crooked bend US-69 takes going into the South side of Muskogee it would be pretty easy for ODOT to build a new terrain freeway bypass West of Muskogee and not put traffic way out of its way. Wagoner would be even easier to bypass to the West.

Then there is the safety aspect. It's not exactly a good thing to have lots of semi trucks pounding down the main surface street in a town. Then there's all the noise from trucks as well as the wear and tear on local streets. Most towns outside of the OKC and Tulsa areas are slowly losing population. A new Interstate might help spur at least some economic development and reverse some of the exodus.

Upgrading US-75 from McAlester to Tulsa to Interstate standards would be a good idea. But doing so would not be any easier than upgrading US-69. It might even be more difficult. As you mentioned, Okmulgee is a serious obstacle. Henrietta is a bit tricky too. Between Okmulgee and Glenpool US-75 has quite a few properties encroaching too close to the highway to incorporate frontage roads and/or exit ramps.

[The Ghostbuster]

I know I've said this before but there aren't any official plans to extend Interstate 45 northward into Oklahoma (although if there was, I would support doing so). The only evidence I've seen of an official Interstate 45 extension is a section of ISTEA (1991) indicating that US 69 would become an Interstate once it was upgraded to Interstate Standards: https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-045/. Over 30 years later, sufficient portions of US 69 still need to be upgraded to even get a future Interstate to reach Interstate 40, let alone get a future Interstate to US 412.

[swake]

For that area, I could see them using the existing interchange, then veering to the west on new alignment north of the interchange area, and still bypassing the town.

They couldn't just re-build the US-69/US-412 interchange as a run of the mill cloverleaf. But a cloverleaf seems likely given ODOT's habits. There would be serious merging conflict issues if there was a cloverleaf interchange and then a "Y" interchange within a close distance of each other. ODOT would have to design a more creative solution to veer the US-69 main lanes at an angle thru the interchange to bend traffic flow into the direction of a new bypass.

As far as I know, the I-45 extension would only be up to 412, hence the interchange redesign.

It would be a wasted effort if an extension of I-45 into Oklahoma ended unceremoniously at US-412. I could imagine a phase of an I-45 extension ending there for a certain amount of time.

The enormous amount of heavy truck traffic coming up from the DFW area is not going to hang a left or right on US-412. It's going to keep heading North to Big Cabin just like it's doing right now.

That's a lot of bypasses on that route and those towns do not want the highway upgraded. That's why it would make more sense to route I-45 to Tulsa on the Indian Nations Turnpike north of McAlester and onto US-75.

ODOT does not have to build bypasses within the city limits of any towns along US-69. Considering the pretty crooked bend US-69 takes going into the South side of Muskogee it would be pretty easy for ODOT to build a new terrain freeway bypass West of Muskogee and not put traffic way out of its way. Wagoner would be even easier to bypass to the West.

Then there is the safety aspect. It's not exactly a good thing to have lots of semi trucks pounding down the main surface street in a town. Then there's all the noise from trucks as well as the wear and tear on local streets. Most towns outside of the OKC and Tulsa areas are slowly losing population. A new Interstate might help spur at least some economic development and reverse some of the exodus.

Upgrading US-75 from McAlester to Tulsa to Interstate standards would be a good idea. But doing so would not be any easier than upgrading US-69. It might even be more difficult. As you mentioned, Okmulgee is a serious obstacle. Henrietta is a bit tricky too. Between Okmulgee and Glenpool US-75 has quite a few properties encroaching too close to the highway to incorporate frontage roads and/or exit ramps.

I agree that US-69 should be improved and that those towns should not have all that truck traffic running through the centers of those towns, that was my point with Okmulgee, which is larger than those towns on US-69 north of Muskogee.

My point about the US-75 route over US-69 is that the US-75 improvements are going to happen no matter what and when US-75 south of Tulsa is improved it will pull traffic from US-69 as an easier way to get to I-44. That said, the no growth thing doesn’t apply to the US-69 corridor either.

Muskogee is losing people and I don’t see that changing, but Wagoner, Chouteau and Pryor? Wagoner and Inola are seeing suburban growth now. Pryor and Inola are about to explode in population and will likely take Chouteau with them.

MidAmerica industrial park in Pryor already has a number of big business including Google’s largest data center. Panasonic is bringing 4,000 new job there soon and Canoo if it survives the electric car wars might bring a few thousand more. The Tulsa Port of Inola recently opened a big plant for Sofidel and just announced 1,000 new jobs for Enel making solar panels. Those are just the big projects coming and there are big plans to expand both industrial parks, especially the one in Inola since it has a port and is closer to Tulsa.

That’s going to add 6-7,000 new jobs at least in the next 3-4 years to Inola and Pryor.

Maybe all the growth will force the state to upgrade US-69 eventually, but both industrial parks are also adjacent to US-412, which is where the state is putting money into upgrades now. The idea is that this future interstate US-412 between Tulsa and NW Arkansas will be a green industry corridor linking both metros.

[MikieTimT]

Back on the topic of US-412 upgrading to Interstate status.

Went to the ARDOT Public Involvement meeting in Siloam Springs, chatted up the firm from KC doing the study, and met intelati49 face to face, which was nice, particularly since he lives the next town over from me.  Don't know if Oklahoma's meeting consisted of the same materials, but here are the links to the PEL materials we saw and commented on:

Notice of Public Meeting
U.S. 412 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study
Public Involvement Meeting Notice
Project Fact Sheet - Spring 2023
Planning and Environmental Linkages Study on U.S. 412 from I-35 in Oklahoma to I-49 Arkansas Info Signup
U.S. 412 PEL Public Survey No.1
U.S. 412 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Public Meeting #1 Slides

[intelati49]

Not to say it was worthless, I got to put a face and a voice to MikieT . But I do wish there were more lines/corridors on the map.

I'll try to write up the high notes for each section, but the biggest thing is deciding on the Siloam Springs Bypass Route. That stretch is most likely the only bit of "new" construction vs conversion of expressways.

[MikieTimT]

Not to say it was worthless, I got to put a face and a voice to MikieT . But I do wish there were more lines/corridors on the map.

I'll try to write up the high notes for each section, but the biggest thing is deciding on the Siloam Springs Bypass Route. That stretch is most likely the only bit of "new" construction vs conversion of expressways.

Somehow beat you posting by 8 seconds!  Mainly they were soliciting comments for how to figure out how to route around Siloam Springs obviously, and whether or not to do new terrain limited access along the middle section in Arkansas between the Springdale Northern Bypass.  Got into a little spat with a landowner who stayed all of 10 minutes, as he apparently thought it was all my idea to take his family farm of 5 generations for the road.  Insisted that the government doesn't "take" land, but gives market value for any ROW purchases.  Several of the folks for the KC firm studying the project routing were somewhat embarrassed, and there really wasn't a huge ARDOT presence at this stage, but I kind of laughed and let them know that you just can't make everyone happy with a project of this scope.  No question that it's needed and will happen, regardless of the history and sentimentality.  Can't halt change at the end of the day, so might as well embrace it and try to shape it for the greatest good.  I'd probably not be too happy to have my property condemned either, but at this stage, there isn't even a route proposed around Siloam Springs, so it was a lot of tilting at windmills.  Talked to a newspaper photographer there who apparently wanted my name as I guess he was going to put my picture in the local Siloam Springs newspaper.  Hope I wasn't picking my nose or anything when he snapped the pic.

[Scott5114]

Okay, I'll be that guy and ask since someone will eventually... Did anyone at these meetings mention a number for this new route yet?

(Someone on OKCTalk claims they talked to someone at one of the Oklahoma agencies and they said it would be a western I-42. I don't know how credible this is, though.)

[MikieTimT]

Okay, I'll be that guy and ask since someone will eventually... Did anyone at these meetings mention a number for this new route yet?

(Someone on OKCTalk claims they talked to someone at one of the Oklahoma agencies and they said it would be a western I-42. I don't know how credible this is, though.)

It wasn't even really staffed by ARDOT, per se, but the engineering firm out of KC.  I did talk to one guy at one of the slides about this very thing, and he thought I-42 or I-46, but he didn't have any more pull with AASHTO on that particular subject than you or I do, so he didn't know.  Of course, our beloved legislature can also write a number into law, like I-57 or I-99 and take it out of their hands.

I pitched I-50 myself as I eventually see it extended on both ends, just not for decades.  It'll go east toward Nashville before it goes further west than I-35 in all likelihood. US-412 (I-50) and US-50/400/60/Western Kentucky Parkway (I-60) are really the only E-W corridors between I-40 and I-70 in mid-America between the big mountain ranges that could even warrant such numbers anyway.  It's not like states have issues handling duplicate route numbers anymore anyway with the advent of computers that can handle route designations with greater than 4 alphanumeric characters.  The AASHTO policy is antiquated and needs refigured by now.

That said, I-42 doesn't suck either as the current highway has the numbers in it anyway.  They can call it "Bob" for all I care as long as the road gets built to standards within 10 years.

[Road Hog]

That said, I-42 doesn't suck either as the current highway has the numbers in it anyway.  They can call it "Bob" for all I care as long as the road gets built to standards within 10 years.

Get Hot, I-BOB sign fans!

[Henry]

Okay, I'll be that guy and ask since someone will eventually... Did anyone at these meetings mention a number for this new route yet?

(Someone on OKCTalk claims they talked to someone at one of the Oklahoma agencies and they said it would be a western I-42. I don't know how credible this is, though.)

It wasn't even really staffed by ARDOT, per se, but the engineering firm out of KC.  I did talk to one guy at one of the slides about this very thing, and he thought I-42 or I-46, but he didn't have any more pull with AASHTO on that particular subject than you or I do, so he didn't know.  Of course, our beloved legislature can also write a number into law, like I-57 or I-99 and take it out of their hands.

I pitched I-50 myself as I eventually see it extended on both ends, just not for decades.  It'll go east toward Nashville before it goes further west than I-35 in all likelihood. US-412 (I-50) and US-50/400/60/Western Kentucky Parkway (I-60) are really the only E-W corridors between I-40 and I-70 in mid-America between the big mountain ranges that could even warrant such numbers anyway.  It's not like states have issues handling duplicate route numbers anymore anyway with the advent of computers that can handle route designations with greater than 4 alphanumeric characters.  The AASHTO policy is antiquated and needs refigured by now.

That said, I-42 doesn't suck either as the current highway has the numbers in it anyway.  They can call it "Bob" for all I care as long as the road gets built to standards within 10 years.

I'm another proponent of the I-50 number. I really hate that the I-x0s haven't been filled all the way in like the I-x5s have, and I feel that this would be the genesis for the next cross-country Interstate. Also overdue is a revival of the Transamerica Corridor (aka the long-dead western I-66), using the I-60 number and having some modifications done to its routing. I would like to see at least one of these two corridors built in my lifetime, even though I may not even live to actually witness any actual construction, so at the very least, I'll have all my marked-up old atlases to look back on.

[Rover_0]

Okay, I'll be that guy and ask since someone will eventually... Did anyone at these meetings mention a number for this new route yet?

(Someone on OKCTalk claims they talked to someone at one of the Oklahoma agencies and they said it would be a western I-42. I don't know how credible this is, though.)

It wasn't even really staffed by ARDOT, per se, but the engineering firm out of KC.  I did talk to one guy at one of the slides about this very thing, and he thought I-42 or I-46, but he didn't have any more pull with AASHTO on that particular subject than you or I do, so he didn't know.  Of course, our beloved legislature can also write a number into law, like I-57 or I-99 and take it out of their hands.

I pitched I-50 myself as I eventually see it extended on both ends, just not for decades.  It'll go east toward Nashville before it goes further west than I-35 in all likelihood. US-412 (I-50) and US-50/400/60/Western Kentucky Parkway (I-60) are really the only E-W corridors between I-40 and I-70 in mid-America between the big mountain ranges that could even warrant such numbers anyway.  It's not like states have issues handling duplicate route numbers anymore anyway with the advent of computers that can handle route designations with greater than 4 alphanumeric characters.  The AASHTO policy is antiquated and needs refigured by now.

That said, I-42 doesn't suck either as the current highway has the numbers in it anyway.  They can call it "Bob" for all I care as long as the road gets built to standards within 10 years.

I'm another proponent of the I-50 number. I really hate that the I-x0s haven't been filled all the way in like the I-x5s have, and I feel that this would be the genesis for the next cross-country Interstate. Also overdue is a revival of the Transamerica Corridor (aka the long-dead western I-66), using the I-60 number and having some modifications done to its routing. I would like to see at least one of these two corridors built in my lifetime, even though I may not even live to actually witness any actual construction, so at the very least, I'll have all my marked-up old atlases to look back on.

There’s a political editorial talking about an “Interstate 54” running between Tallahassee FL and St. George UT and using a possible alignment using the US-412 corridor, so there’s that option. Personally, I’d prefer I-48, I-52, or I-58 as there’s no conflict with an existing, same-numbered US Highway.

There’s also the more out-there idea to create a parallel US Route to some variation of this Interstate that would be used where the road isn’t up to standards, possibly with the same number (think I-52 and US-412 or I-48 and US-48, slight out-of-grid placement notwithstanding).

[Plutonic Panda]

I hope it’s I-50.

[The Ghostbuster]

I'd pick 46 or 48. As for the Interstate 54 Rover_0 mentioned, outside of the US 412 corridor between Interstates 35 and 49, none of the rest of the corridor would ever be constructed. A Fictional Highways proposal if I ever saw one.

[MikieTimT]

Did anyone on the boards go to the Oklahoma meeting?  If so, was it pretty much the same presentation?  I would assume the same engineering firm is working with both DOTs, so probably so.

[Plutonic Panda]

Here’s a link to the story map of which I was only able to get through the survey that finally opened for me:

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b71bcf1f1fab422baa6dc11acbac3051

[rte66man]

Here’s a link to the story map of which I was only able to get through the survey that finally opened for me:

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b71bcf1f1fab422baa6dc11acbac3051

The study said there were 2 at-grade intersections on the Cimarron Turnpike. I looked them up on Google and saw one is the access to the OHP building just south of the US64 interchange near Morrison. The other is a maintenance access east of Glencoe. It has a gate that is locked until needed to give mowers access. I would hardly classify both as "at-grade intersections".

[bugo]

They will also likely have to address the segment through Greenwood and come up with a long term plan which would be great if they could tunnel it but at minimum something will need to be done to address that issue. So it seems like the segment through Tulsa will have some issues to work out but should be fairly simple as long as they can get the money.

There's nothing to address. The neighborhood isn't there anymore. That ship sailed 50 years ago. This is a bunch of nothing.

I disagree. It’s an urban stretch of interstate that needs to be redesign. The better fit the needs of the neighborhood it replaced even if it isn’t there anymore. You can’t just destroy a neighborhood and then say hey, there’s no concern valid because the neighborhood we destroyed isn’t there anymore. That’s ridiculous.

Trying to "reconnect" something that hasn't existed in two generations is much more ridiculous. There's literally one church and a college north of the highway. I don't think the folks who live in the gentrified apartments at Greenwood and Archer are going to be walking to an African American church, and if they did, the underpass is wide open and lit up at night.

Your suggestion is about as ridiculous as saying that they should build a tunnel through Sideling Hill, even though the roadcut has been there for decades. The hill is no longer there, so you wouldn't be preserving or reconnecting anything, because what was once there is gone forever.

Have you ever been to this part of Tulsa?

I’ve been to it but I only drove through it on the interstate. I’ve seen pictures. It really is more about spurring development than reconnecting the neighborhood that isn’t there anymore.

Spurring development? Why? There is development all over the city. Why here? And why is it worth tearing down a busy freeway that is part of a major national highway (and is about to have a second Interstate routed along it) just so they can develop some land? They can build new buildings in BA or Catoosa. There's absolutely no reason this area has to be developed. There's nothing wrong with undeveloped land. This is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard in my life.

[Plutonic Panda]

What the fuck are you talking about? I didn’t suggest tearing out a highway. Get some reading comprehension.

[MikieTimT]

Here’s a link to the story map of which I was only able to get through the survey that finally opened for me:

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b71bcf1f1fab422baa6dc11acbac3051

The study said there were 2 at-grade intersections on the Cimarron Turnpike. I looked them up on Google and saw one is the access to the OHP building just south of the US64 interchange near Morrison. The other is a maintenance access east of Glencoe. It has a gate that is locked until needed to give mowers access. I would hardly classify both as "at-grade intersections".

Probably about a third of the "intersections" on the 4 lane divided stretch between Tontitown and Siloam Springs could be easily handled by short access roads and overpasses tied to a dramatically reduced exit count.  By my reckoning, there should be an exit at Fairmont Rd., Chamber Springs Rd., Martin Pedro Rd., Robinson Rd., Littrell Rd., and Wildcat Creek Rd./WC-851.  Everything else could be tied into one of those exits with access roads of less than a mile, or closed entirely as they tie back to one of them within 3 miles on their backsides.  Making the 4 lane divided part west of Tontitown into limited access seems like a no-brainer to me rather than a new terrain parallel through a rather narrow Illinois River floodplain that has flooded with great regularity since the current 4 lane facility was put into place.

[MikieTimT]

Here’s a link to the story map of which I was only able to get through the survey that finally opened for me:

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b71bcf1f1fab422baa6dc11acbac3051

This is the same thing we had in the Arkansas meeting.  I spoke with the lady who was manning physical printout of the last slide at this link at the Arkansas meeting, and she said that the next public open house meeting, which is the Alternatives Review that is scheduled in the fall timeframe, would be around September.  Probably do the submission to AASHTO for Interstate Designation around the same time.

[bugo]

When the number is approved by AASHTO and the FHWA, will ODOT go ahead and sign the parts of the road that are (grandfathered in) Interstate standard with the new number? The portion from I-35 to about 3 miles east of the I-44/US 412 split will all be a freeway except for the one at grade near the Keystone Dam. The Cherokee Turnpike is a freeway, so that part could theoretically be signed. The only part in Arkansas that is a freeway is the AR 612 freeway stub. If they don't go all the way and sign it, will they at least post "future I-xx" signs? I don't think I've ever seen a future Interstate sign in Oklahoma, but there haven't been any future Interstates planned since states started posting future Interstate signs.

[sprjus4]

^ The Cherokee Turnpike segment could not be signed as it does not connect to any other interstate highway segments.

Any signed segments would need to connect to an existing interstate highway.