AARoads Forum

Stumbled across an item in Wikipedia regarding US 69 in Oklahoma

Quote
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 requires the United States Secretary of Transportation to designate US-69 between the Texas state line and Checotah as an Interstate highway upon request from ODOT.

I'm guessing this would be a northern extension of I-45?  What are the odds of this happening considering all the upgrades that would have to be made to 69?

Quote from: US71 on March 07, 2018, 08:56:54 PM
Stumbled across an item in Wikipedia regarding US 69 in Oklahoma

Quote
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 requires the United States Secretary of Transportation to designate US-69 between the Texas state line and Checotah as an Interstate highway upon request from ODOT.

I'm guessing this would be a northern extension of I-45?  What are the odds of this happening considering all the upgrades that would have to be made to 69?

Whatever Congress says goes. Look at I-11 and I-99.

Extending I-45 would make the most sense and would make even more sense if it continued north of Checotah and ended at I-44 near Big Cabin. If it weren't for I-49 being nearby, I-45 could've even continued along US-69 to I-35 near Kansas City.

But I doubt Oklahoma is interested in any new interstates. Getting Texas to cooperate shouldn't be a problem since they're on an interstate spree. People bitch about North Carolina's pursuit of interstates, but at least theirs makes sense...well, except for I-74 and I-87.

Suffice to say, in this situation TX is NC, slapping Interstate shields on everything they damn well please, and OK is VA, being reluctant to continue any new ones across their borders. Don't be surprised if without warning, the I-45 extension ends at the state line, like I-73 and possibly I-87 will in the near future.

This needs to be done.

Right now Texas isn't putting Interstate highway shields on anything new unless it has something to do with the I-69 project. I would even count I-2 as part of the I-69 effort. Elsewhere in Texas many US and State highway segments have been built (or are in the process of being upgraded) to Interstate quality without getting an Interstate designation. That includes US-75/US-69 leading up to the Red River. I think some of this has to do with the amount of federal funding going into these projects. If the state of Texas has to pay for the bulk of the improvements why would they put an Interstate shield on the finished project?

If ODOT indeed requested US-69 be included in the Interstate highway system up to I-40 & Checotah that would make sense. I have long thought US-69 should be upgraded to Interstate quality from the Red River to Big Cabin & I-44.

Unfortunately it appears other people within Oklahoma are blocking improvements of the US-69 corridor, despite the ridiculous amounts of heavy truck traffic and dangers the current road design pose to motorists. According to what I've read elsewhere in this form people along the corridor in towns like Atoka and Stringtown have blocked corridor improvements, afraid their towns will die off if "bypassed." Never mind the fact small towns in Oklahoma are losing population to aging, youth migration to opportunties elsewhere and young people in general having far fewer children than past generations.

Oklahoma's state government is broke. The latest crisis is over teacher pay. Oklahoma now ranks dead freaking last in the nation. We've already been losing teachers, police officers, fire fighters, etc to better pay in other states. Years ago the state government passed big tax cuts it thought would create all sorts of growth that never happened. Its balanced budget law has forced the state to make deep cuts into the bone on many things, including public education. A recent measure to fund teacher pay raises with a fuel tax hike failed to pass. The state's fuel tax hasn't changed since 1993. IMHO fuel taxes should only be used to fund roads.

Some Interstate quality upgrades to US-69 are planned for Calera, McAlester and Muskogee. These will be useful upgrades, but far more has to be done to get the rest of the corridor upgraded. Changes in mindset need to happen in Oklahoma's state government and at the federal level.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 08, 2018, 11:34:35 AM
Oklahoma's state government is broke. The latest crisis is over teacher pay. Oklahoma now ranks dead freaking last in the nation. We've already been losing teachers, police officers, fire fighters, etc to better pay in other states. Years ago the state government passed big tax cuts it thought would create all sorts of growth that never happened. Its balanced budget law has forced the state to make deep cuts into the bone on many things, including public education. A recent measure to fund teacher pay raises with a fuel tax hike failed to pass. The state's fuel tax hasn't changed since 1993. IMHO fuel taxes should only be used to fund roads.

That plan will reappear in a different bill at least once before the end of this session in May.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 08, 2018, 11:34:35 AM
Right now Texas isn't putting Interstate highway shields on anything new unless it has something to do with the I-69 project. I would even count I-2 as part of the I-69 effort. Elsewhere in Texas many US and State highway segments have been built (or are in the process of being upgraded) to Interstate quality without getting an Interstate designation. That includes US-75/US-69 leading up to the Red River. I think some of this has to do with the amount of federal funding going into these projects. If the state of Texas has to pay for the bulk of the improvements why would they put an Interstate shield on the finished project?

I-14?

Quote from: roadguy2 on March 07, 2018, 09:29:46 PM

Quote from: US71 on March 07, 2018, 08:56:54 PM
Stumbled across an item in Wikipedia regarding US 69 in Oklahoma

Quote
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 requires the United States Secretary of Transportation to designate US-69 between the Texas state line and Checotah as an Interstate highway upon request from ODOT.

I'm guessing this would be a northern extension of I-45?  What are the odds of this happening considering all the upgrades that would have to be made to 69?

Whatever Congress says goes. Look at I-11 and I-99.

and I-57 in Arkansas?

Quote from: rte66manThat plan will reappear in a different bill at least once before the end of this session in May.

I hope the plan washes up dead and bloated when it appears on the floor again. They need to be funding teacher pay through more appropriate sources rather than a gimmick of carving the raises out of highway funding. We have all kinds of serious street & highway needs in Oklahoma. If the first fuel tax increase in 25 years gets directed to teacher pay it may be another 25 years before roads get another chance at a funding increase.

Quote from: 1I-14?

Well, yeah, there is that existing freeway stub in Killeen that has been a freeway spur already for decades. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for much to be added to "I-14" any time soon.

Sherman (city council, economic development, can't remember which) has said in a recent local article there that they want to pursue interstate status for US 75 once anything left to upgrade there along the highway is done.  They didn't come out and say which number they might like, but 45 would have to be it.  Sorry, don't have the article linkie at the moment, but it was definitely online.  Nothing was specifically mentioned about how connected they'd like to be in an interstate situation, but I would guess the more, the better.

Quote from: txstateends on March 09, 2018, 12:34:10 AM
Sherman (city council, economic development, can't remember which) has said in a recent local article there that they want to pursue interstate status for US 75 once anything left to upgrade there along the highway is done.  They didn't come out and say which number they might like, but 45 would have to be it.  Sorry, don't have the article linkie at the moment, but it was definitely online.  Nothing was specifically mentioned about how connected they'd like to be in an interstate situation, but I would guess the more, the better.

Easy find. http://www.kten.com/story/37104409/plans-for-an-interstate-compatible-us-75-in-sherman

Thanks!  The one I ran across before was maybe a newspaper one; I hadn't looked yet for a TV version online.

Quote from: US71 on March 08, 2018, 12:37:25 PM

Quote from: roadguy2 on March 07, 2018, 09:29:46 PM

Quote from: US71 on March 07, 2018, 08:56:54 PM
Stumbled across an item in Wikipedia regarding US 69 in Oklahoma

Quote
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 requires the United States Secretary of Transportation to designate US-69 between the Texas state line and Checotah as an Interstate highway upon request from ODOT.

I'm guessing this would be a northern extension of I-45?  What are the odds of this happening considering all the upgrades that would have to be made to 69?

Whatever Congress says goes. Look at I-11 and I-99.

and I-57 in Arkansas?

Does I-69 in Kentucky count as well? And I didn't mention 3dis of I-69 in KY. ;)

If Interstate 45 is extended north (and I doubt it will be), where exactly would its northern terminus be?

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 09, 2018, 06:32:00 PM
If Interstate 45 is extended north (and I doubt it will be), where exactly would its northern terminus be?

The legal definition of the 1991 corridor is Checotah, at the I-40 interchange.  I'm guessing that if something were to happen, from the TX state line to that point would be the initial phase; with any northern extension happening down the line as funding and political viability dictate.

At least I-40 at Checotah would aim the Interstate designation in the right direction. I could have seen them end it McAlester, that way they could debate whether extending the potential Interstate directly North to Tulsa or (doing what I think they should do) extending the Interstate up to Big Cabin -where so much of that heavy truck traffic from Texas is headed.

Now, I think US-75 should be upgraded to Interstate quality between Henryetta and Tulsa. But doing so could be politically difficult. Some properties would have to be cleared in Henryetta. Oklmulgee would require a bypass around the town (which I'm sure more than a few residents there would fight furiously). The rest of the way, on up to Glenpool, numerous properties are hugging the current 4-lane highway and would have to be cleared.

Quote from: The GhostbusterI'm guessing that if something were to happen, from the TX state line to that point would be the initial phase; with any northern extension happening down the line as funding and political viability dictate.

Plans are in development for an Interstate quality US-69 bypass of Muskogee. That would take care of the biggest construction obstacle North of I-40. McAlester is another project that would help develop the corridor. Still, there's that Atoka and Stringtown stuff happening.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 10, 2018, 12:02:23 AM
Now, I think US-75 should be upgraded to Interstate quality between Henryetta and Tulsa. But doing so could be politically difficult. Some properties would have to be cleared in Henryetta. Oklmulgee would require a bypass around the town (which I'm sure more than a few residents there would fight furiously). The rest of the way, on up to Glenpool, numerous properties are hugging the current 4-lane highway and would have to be cleared.

There's a freaking traffic light in Glenpool. US 75 is a 4 lane expressway with some freeway segments from Bartlesville to Okmulgee, a distance of about 77 miles. Smack dab in the middle, there is the single traffic light, at 141st Street. Traffic can back up for a half mile at this bottleneck during rush hour. It's dangerous and wastes time and fuel. If an interchange were to be built at US 75 and 141st, a few businesses would have to be demolished, but it would be worth it. There was a light at 111th Street until a few years ago but it was replaced by a half-assed interchange of sorts. US 75 really should be a freeway from Bartlesville to Henryetta but it won't happen in my lifetime.

I know there has been a grant allotted to upgrade the section from the state line to Durant, mainly through Calera.  The intersection at the casino with a horribly timed light in Durant needs to go next, but I have a feeling there may be some political pressure to keep that intersection in tact.

There's more of the NIMBY factor going on as they currently propose a bypass around Muskogee.  A website, stopodot.org has been created by folks worried about all of the business drying up.  Personally, US-69 within Muskogee is a dangerous section in my mind, having witnessed several huge wrecks at the first signalized intersection at Hancock, but not sure if the proposed section they want to reroute is the best method. 

If they don't do these bypasses now, and I-49 gets completed first, traffic will die down just as much.

On a tangential note, there is some upgrading along US 69 at Commanche Ave in McAlester complete with numbered exits (69E , 69W, 69WA).

I may try to go over there next week and take a look.

Quote from: RadisonIf they don't do these bypasses now, and I-49 gets completed first, traffic will die down just as much.

It will be a long time before I-49 is filled in between Texarkana and Fort Smith. If it is completed and US-69 stays pretty much as is then I could definitely guess a good amount of long distance car traffic coming up from Texas would opt for I-30 or the I-30/I-49 combination to reach points to the North and East. No stop lights and local speed traps would make the option worth it. OTOH, I think a great deal of the truck traffic would still take US-69 thru Oklahoma regardless of the stop and go hassles. I think truckers would want to avoid the I-49 stretch in the Ozarks. Plus the I-30/I-49 combo from Dallas to a point like Joplin is a longer drive than using US-69 up to I-44.

Quote from: US71On a tangential note, there is some upgrading along US 69 at Commanche Ave in McAlester complete with numbered exits (69E , 69W, 69WA).

The stretch of US-69 in McAlester from the US-69/US-69B split up to the Carl Albert Parkway exit should be relatively easy to upgrade since it's already flanked by frontage roads.

Quote from: US71 on March 12, 2018, 06:41:30 PM
On a tangential note, there is some upgrading along US 69 at Commanche Ave in McAlester complete with numbered exits (69E , 69W, 69WA).

I may try to go over there next week and take a look.

Its right now a massive construction cluster with a 40 mph speed limit.  They've currently got traffic going southbound contraflowed into the northbound lanes. 
They've placed POI signs and numbered those exits with numbers 69E, 69W, and 69WA.  69WA is nothing more than a right turn onto the service road.  They've also created a J-turn southbound 100 ft from an existing AGC.

Southbound exit is for Commanche Ave (sic), and Peaceable Rd.  Northbound exit is for those as well as Wade Watts Ave, which serves as a turnaround for southbound traffic.  These are both posted as orange construction signs and I can only hope that the spelling is corrected, and really the exit numbers.  The exit numbers are no where near right, and if I had to guess, probably deployed by the local municipality rather than the DOT, as McAlester is not 69 miles from the state line (more like 90), or from its split with US-75 in Atoka.  I do have some dashcam footage going southbound and northbound available I may try to put up on the Youtubes, but the NB was at night and didn't come out too well.

I'm not sure that all of US 75 from downtown Dallas to the Oklahoma state line is Interstate quality.  Beside the 3 1/2 mile stretch in Sherman, the portion of the highway in Richardson and Plano, which was last widened in the 1980s, has relatively narrow lanes, due to an HOV lane configuration.  There has been talk about reconstructing this stretch of freeway, a very extensive project that would involve taking considerable right of way in a densely populated corridor.  The recent toll road revolt has taken toll revenues off the table, and this would have been the only practical means of gaining the funding to widen US 75 and meet Interstate standards any time in the near future, given the reluctance of politicians to raise gasoline taxes or impose mileage fees on vehicles to raise the necessary funds.

A northern extension of Interstate 45 won't happen anytime soon, irrespective of what Oklahoma does.

Quote from: nhoward45I'm not sure that all of US 75 from downtown Dallas to the Oklahoma state line is Interstate quality.  Beside the 3 1/2 mile stretch in Sherman, the portion of the highway in Richardson and Plano, which was last widened in the 1980s, has relatively narrow lanes, due to an HOV lane configuration.

Decreased lane width in Richardson would not necessarily be a deal-breaker for obtaining an Interstate designation -considering the expansion of I-35E in Carrollton and Lewisville is stuck with the same thing for the next several years until the other part of that expansion is completed.

Regarding the "toll revolt" in Texas we'll see how that flavor of populist politics plays out over the next few years for funding various major highway projects, particularly those in Texas' rapidly growing cities. None of this stuff is free or cheap to build. The costs and years required to complete any of these projects is only increasing. Yet voters seem to think policy makers can just magically conjure up the funding for these projects out of thin air without raising taxes of fuel purchases or putting up toll gates. It is stupid, deliberate ignorance of very simple math.

I think the biggest thing threatening any possible Northern extension of I-45 is the movement in Dallas to tear down the portion of North Central Expressway between I-30 and Woodall Rodgers Freeway. I think there's a good possibility that could happen. The existing elevated highway and stack interchange with I-30 is aging. New elevated highways are very unpopular politically. While it would be possible to re-build un-signed I-345 in a trench, capped with new green space like nearby Kylde Warren Park, such a project would be really expensive and the construction process might be very disruptive.

Another scenario might have an "I-47" highway going South from Checotah (or from as far North as Big Cabin) and going into the Dallas area.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 15, 2018, 03:25:04 PM

Quote from: nhoward45I'm not sure that all of US 75 from downtown Dallas to the Oklahoma state line is Interstate quality.  Beside the 3 1/2 mile stretch in Sherman, the portion of the highway in Richardson and Plano, which was last widened in the 1980s, has relatively narrow lanes, due to an HOV lane configuration.

Decreased lane width in Richardson would not necessarily be a deal-breaker for obtaining an Interstate designation -considering the expansion of I-35E in Carrollton and Lewisville is stuck with the same thing for the next several years until the other part of that expansion is completed.

Regarding the "toll revolt" in Texas we'll see how that flavor of populist politics plays out over the next few years for funding various major highway projects, particularly those in Texas' rapidly growing cities. None of this stuff is free or cheap to build. The costs and years required to complete any of these projects is only increasing. Yet voters seem to think policy makers can just magically conjure up the funding for these projects out of thin air without raising taxes of fuel purchases or putting up toll gates. It is stupid, deliberate ignorance of very simple math.

I think the biggest thing threatening any possible Northern extension of I-45 is the movement in Dallas to tear down the portion of North Central Expressway between I-30 and Woodall Rodgers Freeway. I think there's a good possibility that could happen. The existing elevated highway and stack interchange with I-30 is aging. New elevated highways are very unpopular politically. While it would be possible to re-build un-signed I-345 in a trench, capped with new green space like nearby Kylde Warren Park, such a project would be really expensive and the construction process might be very disruptive.

Another scenario might have an "I-47" highway going South from Checotah (or from as far North as Big Cabin) and going into the Dallas area.

Another possibility would be to reroute I-45 around the I-20/635 loop, with the remainder of I-45 inside the loop up to I-30 as a relocated I-345, with it picking up its own alignment at the current I-635/US 75 interchange.  Fancifully -- the remainder of US 75 plus the TX 366/Woodall freeway could become another x45.  But if there's a clamor from the north TX suburban area for an I-45 conversion of US 75, that may blunt the push for an I-345 teardown and steer the discussion toward a below-grade replacement facility (as has been discussed at length in that thread).

For what it's worth, an upgrade of US 75 through Sherman is in the works. Here's the story:
http://www.heralddemocrat.com/news/20180322/txdot-unveils-plans-for-hwy-75-improvements

I guess once this project up into Denison (at Morton St/FM-120) is completed that will leave about 6 miles from there to the Red River to improve/widen. I can certainly see TX DOT making US-75 3 lanes in each direction up to the Red River and maybe even replacing the old US-75 bridges across the Red River. I don't know how much ODOT would need to share in that cost however.

The Herald Democrat newspaper article says the intersection with US-75 and US-82 will be re-built, "creating additional capacity within the box that makes up the intersection of the two highways." It sounds like they'll add more lanes to the US-75 & US-82 main lanes and perhaps make some improvements to frontage roads as well since those will be re-routed slightly.

The bigger question is if TX DOT will design the new US-75/US-82 interchange where direct connect flyover ramps could be added in the future (such as building stubs, approaches or simply reserving room for them). The 4 mile US-75 project is estimated to cost $161 million. That's a lot of money, but it's nowhere near enough to include a 4-level direct-connect stack interchange. Stack interchanges start out at $250 million and go up from there these days.

At some point TX DOT will be forced to add flyover ramps to the US-75/US-82 interchange. It might be a tight squeeze avoiding the gas stations and other businesses on the four corners of that interchange box. Over the long term more development and traffic will be on both US-75 and US-82, especially if/when the Dallas North Tollway is extended up to US-82 via Preston Rd/TX-289. The DNT may eventually be dove-tailed into US-75 between Sherman and Denison. Lake Texoma is a big leisure attraction, as are casinos across the Red River (like the Choctaw Casino resort-hotel next to Durant).

If they extend I-45, I would guess they'd end it at the Denison interchange with US 69. I wouldn't be surprised if US 75 were truncated to Atoka, eventually.

US-75 runs clear up to the Canadian border, a little over a mile East where I-29 ends. And then Manitoba highway 75 goes farther North from there to Winnipeg. There's no need to truncate US-75 at all, much less end it at Atoka.

If I-45 was extended North along US-75 it probably would indeed end at the US-69 interchange just South of the Red River and Texas travel center. To get I-45 across the river those two old US-75 bridges would need to be replaced (which wouldn't be all that difficult or costly to do; it's not like there's barge traffic navigating that part of the river). Oklahoma would have to do its own highway upgrades, some of which is planned or happening.

I could at least see I-45 (or "I-47") getting as far as Durant and US-70 within the next decade if there is a real push to Interstate designation. Atoka and Stringtown are strangely big political hurdles (even though they shouldn't be). The military angle, like what is being used to push I-14 development, could just as easily be applied here since there is a major Army installation just SW of McAlester. If not for the Atoka-Stringtown crap it should be feasible to extend I-45 at least as far North as I-40 in Checotah.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 29, 2018, 12:25:19 PM
The bigger question is if TX DOT will design the new US-75/US-82 interchange where direct connect flyover ramps could be added in the future (such as building stubs, approaches or simply reserving room for them). The 4 mile US-75 project is estimated to cost $161 million. That's a lot of money, but it's nowhere near enough to include a 4-level direct-connect stack interchange. Stack interchanges start out at $250 million and go up from there these days.

If I had to make a guess based on past situations, TXDOT will, for the time being, put a volleyball at the 75/82 interchange.  If plans for a full freeway on US 82 from at least I-35 to Paris are forthcoming, then they'll bite the bullet, buy adjacent property, and install a stack or at least something resembling a turbine.  Volleyballs seem to be the TX method of choice when both funds and location are "tight".  But I think the assessment of US 75 -- regardless of whether Interstate status is sought -- as not only part of a major interregional corridor but also a weekend recreational egress for DFW is spot on -- and this latest push for expansion is a manifestation of that reality. 

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 29, 2018, 01:36:26 PM
US-75 runs clear up to the Canadian border, a little over a mile East where I-29 ends. And then Manitoba highway 75 goes farther North from there to Winnipeg. There's no need to truncate US-75 at all, much less end it at Atoka.

This is true, but the border crossing was closed by the Canadian government a number of years ago.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 29, 2018, 01:36:26 PM
US-75 runs clear up to the Canadian border, a little over a mile East where I-29 ends. And then Manitoba highway 75 goes farther North from there to Winnipeg. There's no need to truncate US-75 at all, much less end it at Atoka.

No need for a redundant 75 just to end it in Denison. TxDOT tends to truncate US Route numbers where there's an overlapping interstate for the remainder of the route.

Since 75 wouldn't go anywhere in Texas anymore, and 69 is the more important route in SE OK, truncating 75 to Atoka would aid in navigation and reduce confusion.

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 29, 2018, 03:42:13 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 29, 2018, 01:36:26 PM
US-75 runs clear up to the Canadian border, a little over a mile East where I-29 ends. And then Manitoba highway 75 goes farther North from there to Winnipeg. There's no need to truncate US-75 at all, much less end it at Atoka.

This is true, but the border crossing was closed by the Canadian government a number of years ago.

At the risk of slipping into Fictional here -- if TX elects to extend I-45 north to the state line, the most rational course of action would be to truncate US 69 to Atoka and reroute US 75 over current US 69 from Sherman to Port Arthur (ironically, that routing just happens to intersect the other end of US 175).  Takes care of the US 69/I-69 conundrum (not that TXDOT gives a shit) in the process!

I wouldn't worry about fictional slippage, since there is obviously some move, at least on the local level, to get interstate status.  The most logical numbering would be I-45.  According to the article in the link above, the state has funded the work that will start next year, so the state must think it's important, or they wouldn't have moved to fund it.  Also, if the traffic counts hold up or increase (especially the amount of truckers), that should just add to any move to make the corridor an interstate.

Quote from: sparker on March 29, 2018, 03:55:12 PM

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 29, 2018, 03:42:13 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 29, 2018, 01:36:26 PM
US-75 runs clear up to the Canadian border, a little over a mile East where I-29 ends. And then Manitoba highway 75 goes farther North from there to Winnipeg. There's no need to truncate US-75 at all, much less end it at Atoka.

This is true, but the border crossing was closed by the Canadian government a number of years ago.

At the risk of slipping into Fictional here -- if TX elects to extend I-45 north to the state line, the most rational course of action would be to truncate US 69 to Atoka and reroute US 75 over current US 69 from Sherman to Port Arthur (ironically, that routing just happens to intersect the other end of US 175).  Takes care of the US 69/I-69 conundrum (not that TXDOT gives a shit) in the process!

I disagree.

I say it would be more logical to truncate US 75 to Atoka, and co-sign US 69 with I-45 from Denison TX to Big Cabin OK.

Quote from: Brian556 on March 30, 2018, 02:00:39 AM

Quote from: sparker on March 29, 2018, 03:55:12 PM

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 29, 2018, 03:42:13 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 29, 2018, 01:36:26 PM
US-75 runs clear up to the Canadian border, a little over a mile East where I-29 ends. And then Manitoba highway 75 goes farther North from there to Winnipeg. There's no need to truncate US-75 at all, much less end it at Atoka.

This is true, but the border crossing was closed by the Canadian government a number of years ago.

At the risk of slipping into Fictional here -- if TX elects to extend I-45 north to the state line, the most rational course of action would be to truncate US 69 to Atoka and reroute US 75 over current US 69 from Sherman to Port Arthur (ironically, that routing just happens to intersect the other end of US 175).  Takes care of the US 69/I-69 conundrum (not that TXDOT gives a shit) in the process!

I disagree.

I say it would be more logical to truncate US 75 to Atoka, and co-sign US 69 with I-45 from Denison TX to Big Cabin OK.

Would CraIG COUnty move to the new freeway?

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 08, 2018, 11:34:35 AM
Right now Texas isn't putting Interstate highway shields on anything new unless it has something to do with the I-69 project. I would even count I-2 as part of the I-69 effort. Elsewhere in Texas many US and State highway segments have been built (or are in the process of being upgraded) to Interstate quality without getting an Interstate designation. That includes US-75/US-69 leading up to the Red River. I think some of this has to do with the amount of federal funding going into these projects. If the state of Texas has to pay for the bulk of the improvements why would they put an Interstate shield on the finished project?

If ODOT indeed requested US-69 be included in the Interstate highway system up to I-40 & Checotah that would make sense. I have long thought US-69 should be upgraded to Interstate quality from the Red River to Big Cabin & I-44.

Unfortunately it appears other people within Oklahoma are blocking improvements of the US-69 corridor, despite the ridiculous amounts of heavy truck traffic and dangers the current road design pose to motorists. According to what I've read elsewhere in this form people along the corridor in towns like Atoka and Stringtown have blocked corridor improvements, afraid their towns will die off if "bypassed." Never mind the fact small towns in Oklahoma are losing population to aging, youth migration to opportunties elsewhere and young people in general having far fewer children than past generations.

Oklahoma's state government is broke. The latest crisis is over teacher pay. Oklahoma now ranks dead freaking last in the nation. We've already been losing teachers, police officers, fire fighters, etc to better pay in other states. Years ago the state government passed big tax cuts it thought would create all sorts of growth that never happened. Its balanced budget law has forced the state to make deep cuts into the bone on many things, including public education. A recent measure to fund teacher pay raises with a fuel tax hike failed to pass. The state's fuel tax hasn't changed since 1993. IMHO fuel taxes should only be used to fund roads.

Some Interstate quality upgrades to US-69 are planned for Calera, McAlester and Muskogee. These will be useful upgrades, but far more has to be done to get the rest of the corridor upgraded. Changes in mindset need to happen in Oklahoma's state government and at the federal level.

Texas could annex Oklahoma, but only if the Sooners change their name

Quote from: texaskdog on March 31, 2018, 04:36:51 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 08, 2018, 11:34:35 AM
Right now Texas isn't putting Interstate highway shields on anything new unless it has something to do with the I-69 project. I would even count I-2 as part of the I-69 effort. Elsewhere in Texas many US and State highway segments have been built (or are in the process of being upgraded) to Interstate quality without getting an Interstate designation. That includes US-75/US-69 leading up to the Red River. I think some of this has to do with the amount of federal funding going into these projects. If the state of Texas has to pay for the bulk of the improvements why would they put an Interstate shield on the finished project?

If ODOT indeed requested US-69 be included in the Interstate highway system up to I-40 & Checotah that would make sense. I have long thought US-69 should be upgraded to Interstate quality from the Red River to Big Cabin & I-44.

Unfortunately it appears other people within Oklahoma are blocking improvements of the US-69 corridor, despite the ridiculous amounts of heavy truck traffic and dangers the current road design pose to motorists. According to what I've read elsewhere in this form people along the corridor in towns like Atoka and Stringtown have blocked corridor improvements, afraid their towns will die off if "bypassed." Never mind the fact small towns in Oklahoma are losing population to aging, youth migration to opportunties elsewhere and young people in general having far fewer children than past generations.

Oklahoma's state government is broke. The latest crisis is over teacher pay. Oklahoma now ranks dead freaking last in the nation. We've already been losing teachers, police officers, fire fighters, etc to better pay in other states. Years ago the state government passed big tax cuts it thought would create all sorts of growth that never happened. Its balanced budget law has forced the state to make deep cuts into the bone on many things, including public education. A recent measure to fund teacher pay raises with a fuel tax hike failed to pass. The state's fuel tax hasn't changed since 1993. IMHO fuel taxes should only be used to fund roads.

Some Interstate quality upgrades to US-69 are planned for Calera, McAlester and Muskogee. These will be useful upgrades, but far more has to be done to get the rest of the corridor upgraded. Changes in mindset need to happen in Oklahoma's state government and at the federal level.

Texas could annex Oklahoma, but only if the Sooners change their name

Texas wants so secede and I'm not sure Oklahoma would survive

Have 75 run on the Indian Nation Turnpike, replace US 271 to Gladewater, TX 135 to Kilgore, and replace US 259 to Redfield.

Quote from: US71 on March 31, 2018, 11:04:45 AM

Quote from: texaskdog on March 31, 2018, 04:36:51 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 08, 2018, 11:34:35 AM
Right now Texas isn't putting Interstate highway shields on anything new unless it has something to do with the I-69 project. I would even count I-2 as part of the I-69 effort. Elsewhere in Texas many US and State highway segments have been built (or are in the process of being upgraded) to Interstate quality without getting an Interstate designation. That includes US-75/US-69 leading up to the Red River. I think some of this has to do with the amount of federal funding going into these projects. If the state of Texas has to pay for the bulk of the improvements why would they put an Interstate shield on the finished project?

If ODOT indeed requested US-69 be included in the Interstate highway system up to I-40 & Checotah that would make sense. I have long thought US-69 should be upgraded to Interstate quality from the Red River to Big Cabin & I-44.

Unfortunately it appears other people within Oklahoma are blocking improvements of the US-69 corridor, despite the ridiculous amounts of heavy truck traffic and dangers the current road design pose to motorists. According to what I've read elsewhere in this form people along the corridor in towns like Atoka and Stringtown have blocked corridor improvements, afraid their towns will die off if "bypassed." Never mind the fact small towns in Oklahoma are losing population to aging, youth migration to opportunties elsewhere and young people in general having far fewer children than past generations.

Oklahoma's state government is broke. The latest crisis is over teacher pay. Oklahoma now ranks dead freaking last in the nation. We've already been losing teachers, police officers, fire fighters, etc to better pay in other states. Years ago the state government passed big tax cuts it thought would create all sorts of growth that never happened. Its balanced budget law has forced the state to make deep cuts into the bone on many things, including public education. A recent measure to fund teacher pay raises with a fuel tax hike failed to pass. The state's fuel tax hasn't changed since 1993. IMHO fuel taxes should only be used to fund roads.

Some Interstate quality upgrades to US-69 are planned for Calera, McAlester and Muskogee. These will be useful upgrades, but far more has to be done to get the rest of the corridor upgraded. Changes in mindset need to happen in Oklahoma's state government and at the federal level.

Texas could annex Oklahoma, but only if the Sooners change their name

Texas wants so secede and I'm not sure Oklahoma would survive

This calls for a re-reading of Dan Jenkins' (the guy who wrote Semi-Tough) novel Baja Oklahoma.  Touches on the mindsets within each state (filtered, like most Jenkins works, through the sports world).

I still don't think Interstate 45 will be extended north anytime soon, if ever.

I don't see Interstate 45 going north of Dallas, even with the proposed upgrade to U.S. 75 in Denison to Interstate standards.  As long as Oklahoma does nothing on US 69 or US 75, the extension is going nowhere.  The Sooner State is suffering from poor management in the public sector, whether in education or transportation.  It's a shame too, because Kansas is working on upgrading their stretch of US 69 from Fort Scott to the Oklahoma line over the next two decades.

Kansas and Oklahoma need a way to tie the US 69 freeway in KS into the Will Rogers Turnpike. I-44 to US 69 would make a nice alternative to I-44 to I-49 when going from Tulsa to Kansas City and beyond.

Quote from: bugo on April 25, 2018, 09:56:50 PM
Kansas and Oklahoma need a way to tie the US 69 freeway in KS into the Will Rogers Turnpike. I-44 to US 69 would make a nice alternative to I-44 to I-49 when going from Tulsa to Kansas City and beyond.

If the US 69 freeway in KS were to be extended south to I-44, OK need not even be involved if such a freeway facility were to utilize the US 400/166 connection to I-44.  That would also obviate the need to bypass Baxter Springs and build a new-terrain connection from that town down to the Will Rogers Turnpike.  It would also be considerably shorter and consequently less costly. 

Then you're getting Missouri involved, which is almost as broke as Oklahoma and has a competing facility in the form of I-49. And we see how easy it is for them to get their snippet of the BVB built.

Quote from: sparker on April 26, 2018, 02:28:13 AM

Quote from: bugo on April 25, 2018, 09:56:50 PM
Kansas and Oklahoma need a way to tie the US 69 freeway in KS into the Will Rogers Turnpike. I-44 to US 69 would make a nice alternative to I-44 to I-49 when going from Tulsa to Kansas City and beyond.

If the US 69 freeway in KS were to be extended south to I-44, OK need not even be involved if such a freeway facility were to utilize the US 400/166 connection to I-44.  That would also obviate the need to bypass Baxter Springs and build a new-terrain connection from that town down to the Will Rogers Turnpike.  It would also be considerably shorter and consequently less costly. 

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 26, 2018, 05:48:18 AM
Then you're getting Missouri involved, which is almost as broke as Oklahoma and has a competing facility in the form of I-49. And we see how easy it is for them to get their snippet of the BVB built.

I suppose any project considered within that particular "border" region will encounter obstacles no matter what jurisdiction in which it's routed.  But ironically it would likely be the main state containing such a route, KS, which would bear the burden of constructing an extension of the existing US 69 facility around Pittsburg and down to somewhere along the state line -- and they certainly haven't given any indication that this is on their radar in the near-to-middle term.  So speculation about any extension in the greater I-45 context north of I-44 would likely be classified as fictional.  Just because there's a partial facility there doesn't mean it's "corridor-ready" -- and, as the comment about the proximity of I-49 indicates, a more than viable alternative exists -- although not one with the potential to funnel "pass-through" dollars into KS coffers.  MO was wise to upgrade the US 71 corridor with what $$ they could amass; now they have the preferred connection south of KC.     

Quote from: Road Hog on March 29, 2018, 03:12:12 AM
For what it's worth, an upgrade of US 75 through Sherman is in the works. Here's the story:
http://www.heralddemocrat.com/news/20180322/txdot-unveils-plans-for-hwy-75-improvements

I thought the upgrade to Melissa was already overkill enough.

The Unfinished Corridor is going to remained unfinished. If they wanted to finish it, they should have decades ago. I am glad that Interstate 35 has been finished. I am not sure how many protest over the upgrade to Interstate 35 (which could use improvement through Gainesville but that is still much better compared to The Unfinished Corridor) but as for Oklahoma they kept U.S. 77 and built the upgraded Interstate 35.

With The Unfinished Corridor there is several designation changes (U.S. 69 joins north of Denison. U.S. 75 joins north of Atoka.) and there is no new upgraded road west of towns, not even a toll road Choctaw Turnpike which should have been done to begin with. But instead they upgraded the existing Corridor to 4 lanes divided outside of towns. This means that bypassing towns is required. With the towns declaring ownership of the Corridor, they patrol the Corridor and sabotage attempts to bypass the towns.

That is the issue of finishing The Unfinished Corridor in to Oklahoma.

As for finishing The Unfinished Corridor up to Oklahoma, that requires the entire alignment of The Unfinished Corridor to have one designation:

Interstate 45.

After 1956, the I-35 corridor up US 77 throughout most of OK was a fait accompli; every iteration of Interstate plans had an Interstate following that particular existing route (one version actually followed one of the old OK turnpike plans a bit west of the present I-35 alignment).  The only corridor up US 75/69 through Atoka and Muskogee was a proposal included within the original 4500-mile version of the 1968 Interstate additions; it was deleted when the legislation was cut back to 1500 miles later that year (the deletions also included an early version of what's now I-49 to the east).  However, the concept was revived in 1991 with the ISTEA legislation of that year; there was a codicil within the legislation that stated that ODOT could, at their option, designate an Interstate over US 69 from the TX state line to I-40 at Checotah once completed to Interstate standards.  And so far that hasn't occurred, although the corridor has been upgraded along certain segments -- but there is still some in-town mileage through both Atoka and several smaller towns (which apparently have sufficient political clout to forestall any attempt to bypass them).  At this point, holding one's breath for a more comprehensive corridor approach is an exercise in futility.  :ded: 

A possible result of attempting to finish The Unfinished Corridor could be multiple sections of Interstate 45 with still unfinished gaps in between them. Just as Interstate 49. Or in the case of Interstate 69, different sections completed with gaps in between them, some with a letter at the end of the designation.

Whether US-69 from the Red River to Big Cabin ever carries an Interstate designation or not (be it I-45 or even I-47), growing traffic levels along that route will eventually force the upgrade to happen. Development on the North side of the Dallas-Fort Worth metro is spreading to the Red River. New freeways are going to be built in McAlester and Muskogee. That will fill in some of the most important gaps on the route.

The small towns along US-69 like Atoka and Stringtown have blocked any efforts to upgrade their portions of US-69 to Interstate quality. But it's only a matter of time before the anti-freeway influence breaks down. Those towns are not exactly magnets for new businesses and residents. They're aging as well. That translates into a declining tax base and less money for maintaining their streets and other elements of infrastructure. That's a great combination with the giant amount of heavy trucks using that corridor. And then there's the serious traffic accidents that keep happening along that corridor. A grisly enough incident could heat up calls for a freeway bypass out of safety concerns.

I'm a little more skeptical that Kansas could build a new freeway South from Kansas City all the way down to the Oklahoma border. There's not nearly as much heavy truck traffic on that part of US-69 as there is from Big Cabin on South toward Texas. If Kansas did manage to bring a new freeway down to the OK border it would make more sense to route it down so it could be built between Ouapaw and Miami to meet up with I-44. The land there is flat (unlike all the hilly area at the 3 state corner) and the route would be more direct for traffic headed to Tulsa/OKC or DFW.

Kansas already has a freeway facility from Johnson County down to Fort Scott, so they have at least half of their share done. The nearby I-49 corridor could serve as a motivation to provide an alternate corridor to keep people on their side of the state line (and it is really close; half of the control cities for US-69 exits have a MO appended to them). US-69 doesn't seem to pull anywhere near the traffic counts that I-49 does, but Kansas could make a case for completing their part of the corridor, since it would eventually angle southwest, giving Dallas-bound traffic a better route than I-49 to I-30.

Of course, the Brownback administration has landed Kansas in even more dire financial straits than Oklahoma, with a particular focus on raiding KDOT of money, so that could dampen the outlook on that part of the corridor.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 28, 2018, 04:55:32 AM
Kansas already has a freeway facility from Johnson County down to Fort Scott, so they have at least half of their share done. The nearby I-49 corridor could serve as a motivation to provide an alternate corridor to keep people on their side of the state line (and it is really close; half of the control cities for US-69 exits have a MO appended to them). US-69 doesn't seem to pull anywhere near the traffic counts that I-49 does, but Kansas could make a case for completing their part of the corridor, since it would eventually angle southwest, giving Dallas-bound traffic a better route than I-49 to I-30.

The only reason US 69 doesn’t get the traffic that I-49 does is that once you get to Fort Scott, it dumps you onto 2-lane roads, whereas I-49 stays a freeway all the way to I-44. If there were a freeway or even just a 4-lane connection to the Will Rogers Turnpike, I guarantee traffic goes up a ton. That corridor serves more SW-bound traffic to places like Tulsa, OKC, and DFW, whereas 49 is better suited for destinations more to the south, like Little Rock, Shreveport and New Orleans.

US 69 is already 4-laned south of Big Cabin (its junction with I-44) and is a freeway for some of that. Barring a successful anti-freeway movement in the towns along 69, it shouldn’t be that hard to fully upgrade US 69 to freeway in OK.

That said, I wonder if a better option for an extended I-45 would be to use the Indian Nation Turnpike and an upgraded US 75 to enter Tulsa from the south. From there you could run a concurrency east with I-44 to US 69. Or alternatively, it could go north from Tulsa to Kansas City via US 75-160-169 or just 169. 75 and 169 are both freeways in the Tulsa area, 169 has freeway segments south of KC, and I recall 169 has a super-2 section near Chanute that could easily be upgraded to interstate standard. The downside is that most of the rest of that corridor is currently 2-lane roads.

The best way to get from the Will Rogers Turnpike (I-44) from the west to the US 69 freeway in Kansas is to take Exit 313, the Miami exit which is signed as OK 10 off the Will Rogers Turnpike. When you go through the tollbooth and the traffic light at OK 10, go straight onto OK 69A and follow it all the way to US 69. When you get to US 69, turn right (east) onto northbound US 69 and follow it for about a half mile to where US 69 turns left towards Columbus and go straight onto US 69A/Alternate US 69 northbound, Follow US 69A all the way to US 69 in Crestline where US 69A ends. Go straight on US 69 which eventually turns into a freeway and leads to Johnson County, Kansas and the KC metro area. I haven't done all of this route but it goes through a few towns and is likely much slower than I-44 to I-49 is. Still, it is 17 miles closer from Exit 313 to the northeastern corner of the downtown loop in Kansas City, MO via the OK 69A/US 69/US 69A/US 69 routing than it is via I-44 and I-49, so if distance is more important to you than time it is a viable alternative. I personally think this route should be better marked and even renumbering OK 69A to US 69A and duplexing US 69A with I-44 between Exit 283 in Big Cabin to Exit 313 in Miami wouldn't be a bad idea.

Just as an aside, Miami in Oklahoma is not pronounced like the name of the city in Florida. It is pronounced "MI-am-uh" and not "MI-am-ee". It's a good way to tell if somebody is from the area or not.

Quote from: bugo on April 28, 2018, 11:00:09 AM
Just as an aside, Miami in Oklahoma is not pronounced like the name of the city in Florida. It is pronounced "MI-am-uh" and not "MI-am-ee". It's a good way to tell if somebody is from the area or not.

Well not anymore, should I, for some reason, ever find myself stranded there. :biggrin:

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 28, 2018, 01:13:39 PM

Quote from: bugo on April 28, 2018, 11:00:09 AM
Just as an aside, Miami in Oklahoma is not pronounced like the name of the city in Florida. It is pronounced "MI-am-uh" and not "MI-am-ee". It's a good way to tell if somebody is from the area or not.

Well not anymore, should I, for some reason, ever find myself stranded there. :biggrin:

Went through there about 1990 or so EB on I-44 during winter; got caught in a huge snowstorm, with traffic directed off the pike at Miami.  There was a big brick sign assembly at the foot of the ramp after the toll booths stating "Welcome to Miami" -- covered with snow.  Got a picture of it (but after 28 years I'll be damned if I can find it -- probably lost or misplaced during a move) -- one of the most ironic pix I've ever taken!

Quote from: bugo on April 28, 2018, 11:00:09 AM
Just as an aside, Miami in Oklahoma is not pronounced like the name of the city in Florida. It is pronounced "MI-am-uh" and not "MI-am-ee". It's a good way to tell if somebody is from the area or not.

However, Miami in Florida is pronounced like the Ohio original (where the tribe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_people) is actually from).  It's the Oklahoma one that has a screwed up pronunciation.

I always figured the opposition of these little pissant towns between McAlester and Calera was just a convenient excuse for the state of Oklahoma to not spend. These burgs cannot wield as much power as, say, a state legislator.

That echoes my feelings. How exactly can a couple of little tiny towns literally in the back-woods of Oklahoma block upgrades of a major commercial trucking corridor? I think the state government has historically just looked for any excuse it could find to not upgrade that highway. That way they could divert any state and federal funds meant for it over to other projects.

Quote from: US 89The only reason US 69 doesn't get the traffic that I-49 does is that once you get to Fort Scott, it dumps you onto 2-lane roads, whereas I-49 stays a freeway all the way to I-44.

I-49 is one factor that may be lowering traffic counts on US-69 South of Kansas City. The US-169 corridor also siphons away Southbound traffic from Kansas City headed to places like Tulsa. It isn't as developed as US-69; it's a mix of 4-lane & Super-2 but with a decent number of limited access exits. There's a large Amazon distribution hub in Coffeyville. There aren't any tolls along US-169 between Kansas City and Tulsa, unlike the US-69 combination involving I-44.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 01, 2018, 12:56:21 PM
I-49 is one factor that may be lowering traffic counts on US-69 South of Kansas City. The US-169 corridor also siphons away Southbound traffic from Kansas City headed to places like Tulsa. It isn't as developed as US-69; it's a mix of 4-lane & Super-2 but with a decent number of limited access exits. There's a large Amazon distribution hub in Coffeyville. There aren't any tolls along US-169 between Kansas City and Tulsa, unlike the US-69 combination involving I-44.

IIRC, the super-2 sections on US 169 are built to be easily upgraded to a full 4-lane configuration.

I almost wonder if it would be a better idea to use the US 75 and 169 corridors to extend I-45. It could get to Tulsa using US 69/75, the Indian Nation Turnpike, and US 75, and from there it could go north to KC on US 169. Of course, the Indian Nation isn't up to Interstate standards, and a significant amount of freeway bypass construction would be required on 169 in north OK and south KS as well, in addition to the upgrading of existing 2-lane portions.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 01, 2018, 12:56:21 PM
That echoes my feelings. How exactly can a couple of little tiny towns literally in the back-woods of Oklahoma block upgrades of a major commercial trucking corridor? I think the state government has historically just looked for any excuse it could find to not upgrade that highway. That way they could divert any state and federal funds meant for it over to other projects.

Quote from: US 89The only reason US 69 doesn't get the traffic that I-49 does is that once you get to Fort Scott, it dumps you onto 2-lane roads, whereas I-49 stays a freeway all the way to I-44.

I-49 is one factor that may be lowering traffic counts on US-69 South of Kansas City. The US-169 corridor also siphons away Southbound traffic from Kansas City headed to places like Tulsa. It isn't as developed as US-69; it's a mix of 4-lane & Super-2 but with a decent number of limited access exits. There's a large Amazon distribution hub in Coffeyville. There aren't any tolls along US-169 between Kansas City and Tulsa, unlike the US-69 combination involving I-44.

An argument could be made for upgrading US 169.   Decent limited access sections already extend away from both Tulsa, and Kansas City.  And there is a super two section in east - central Kansas that should be easily double barreled.  And it is farther away from I-49.   Drove through coffeyville right after the floods of 2008.  What a mess.  A high grade bypass of that area is sorely needed.   

At first glance it would seem to make more sense to extend I-45 thru Tulsa via US-75 and then up to Kansas City using US-169. But there is so much commercial traffic using US-69 to Big Cabin, OK (and I-44) that it makes more sense to place I-45 on that path. That's the main trucking route for traffic coming from Central Texas & Mexico headed to points in the Northeastern US from St Louis and beyond (Chicago, NYC, Boston, etc). Honestly, if I-45 was extended up to Big Cabin and I-44 it would take away most of the need for building the I-69 system in Texas any farther North than Texarkana. There is certainly a need for South Texas Interstates and an Interstate between Corpus Christi and Houston. An Interstate from Houston to Texarkana can be justified. But after that, the winding, way out of the way nonsense that proposed Interstate does from Arkansas to Indiana is just wasteful. Due to the indirect path I-69 just duplicates efforts of other nearby Interstates in that region. If Oklahoma's legislators weren't so asleep at the wheel they would get on the stick with upgrading US-69 and take advantage of the situation.

I think US-75 should be an Interstate quality freeway between Henryetta and Tulsa, regardless if it ever carries an Interstate designation (such as I-45 or something else). Such a thing would be tricky to build due to the business & residential development encroaching parts of US-75. Henryetta has a couple of minor hurdles on US-75 immediately North of the I-40 interchange. Then there's other stuff here and there along the way into the Southern outskirts of Tulsa.

Olkmulgee started a loop highway of sorts (OK Loop 56). Unfortunately the property set-backs only allow for a standard 4-lane expressway with at-grade intersections. There's all sorts of driveways emptying out onto the main road rather than having full or partial frontage roads controlling the access and preserving future freeway ROW. So any new freeway or toll road going up through there will have to be built on an entirely new terrain alignment.

If I-45 were extended to Big Cabin, the Muskogee Turnpike would allow people to get to Tulsa from I-45 anyway.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 02, 2018, 05:28:57 AM
If I-45 were extended to Big Cabin, the Muskogee Turnpike would allow people to get to Tulsa from I-45 anyway.

That would be way out of the way. It is 21 miles shorter to take the Indian Nation Turnpike to US 75 route. There are a couple of traffic lights in Henryetta and one in Glenpool and you have to go through Okmulgee (much of Okmulgee can be bypassed via US 62 and OK Loop 56) but it would still be much shorter and quite a bit quicker.

Quote from: bugo on May 03, 2018, 10:49:54 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 02, 2018, 05:28:57 AM
If I-45 were extended to Big Cabin, the Muskogee Turnpike would allow people to get to Tulsa from I-45 anyway.

That would be way out of the way. It is 21 miles shorter to take the Indian Nation Turnpike to US 75 route. There are a couple of traffic lights in Henryetta and one in Glenpool and you have to go through Okmulgee (much of Okmulgee can be bypassed via US 62 and OK Loop 56) but it would still be much shorter and quite a bit quicker.

The real question is whether US 75 between Henryetta and Tulsa can be easily upgraded to freeway standards. It looks like it wouldn't be too hard to build a freeway bypass of Okmulgee, likely using some of the OK 56 corridor. I see a lot of at-grade intersections on US 75, but that problem could likely be solved using one-way frontage roads in the difficult areas.

IMO, the cheapest option for extending I-45 from Dallas to Kansas City would be to upgrade US 75 and US 69 from Dallas to Savanna, the Indian Nation Turnpike to I-40, upgrade US 75 from I-40 to Tulsa, a 123 mile concurrency with I-44 from Topeka to Joplin and renumber I-49 as I-45 from Joplin to Kansas City, MO.  I say the cheapest since the long concurrency with I-44 between Tulsa and Joplin and renumbering I-49 north of I-44 as I-45 would eliminate the need for upgrades north of Tulsa.  According to Google maps this I-45 corridor from Galveston to Kansas City would be 798 miles. 

https://goo.gl/maps/SyX6Pums8Sv

The second and probably less-cheap option for I-45 would be to bypass Tulsa to the east and upgrade US 69 all the way to I-44 near Big Cabin, which would give the I-45 corridor a shorter distance of 780 miles and only a 65 mile concurrency with I-44 to Joplin, though more miles of highway in OK would need to be upgraded to interstate standards.

https://goo.gl/maps/3RZubnekcG52

Quote from: Lyon Wonder on May 04, 2018, 01:20:50 AM
IMO, the cheapest option for extending I-45 from Dallas to Kansas City would be to upgrade US 75 and US 69 from Dallas to Savanna, the Indian Nation Turnpike to I-40, upgrade US 75 from I-40 to Tulsa, a 123 mile concurrency with I-44 from Topeka to Joplin and renumber I-49 as I-45 from Joplin to Kansas City, MO.  I say the cheapest since the long concurrency with I-44 between Tulsa and Joplin and renumbering I-49 north of I-44 as I-45 would eliminate the need for upgrades north of Tulsa.  According to Google maps this I-45 corridor from Galveston to Kansas City would be 798 miles. 

https://goo.gl/maps/SyX6Pums8Sv

The second and probably less-cheap option for I-45 would be to bypass Tulsa to the east and upgrade US 69 all the way to I-44 near Big Cabin, which would give the I-45 corridor a shorter distance of 780 miles and only a 65 mile concurrency with I-44 to Joplin, though more miles of highway in OK would need to be upgraded to interstate standards.

https://goo.gl/maps/3RZubnekcG52

Somehow I don't think renumbering of I-49 to I-45 north of Joplin would even be considered; the concept of "major" vs. "minor" Interstates has effectively faded away outside the road enthusiast circle -- and asking MODOT to get behind a re-signage plan that would cost a few million ("parts+labor") to implement would likely elicit derisive chuckles from Jeff City!  If I-45 gets extended, it'll be to Tulsa or Big Cabin, with a miniscule chance of getting to KC via US 69 in KS (but almost certainly not with a Tulsa-based routing). 

Fictional highway here but if you extended I-45 to east of Tulsa, would it be a crazy idea to reroute I-35 onto I-49 south from Kansas City to I-44 at Joplin, run with I-44 to Big Cabin, and then onto the new I-45 from Big Cabin to Dallas.  I-45 would then run along what is I-35E, I-35, and I-135 to Salinas.  I-35 Wichita to KC would have to be renumbered.  I-35w in Fort Worth would have to be an x35.  Sounds complicated but I-35 would be shorter in the new routing.

I-45 should be running East of I-35, not West of it. Running I-45 up to Salinas, KS and renumber I-49 in Missouri as I-35 would throw the numbering grid even farther out of whack.

Re-numbering existing 2-digit Interstates should never be done unless there is a legitimately urgent reason to do so. Route number changes cost a bunch of money to implement on a highway. The changes also affect more things that just the cosmetic look of a map.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 01, 2018, 12:56:21 PM
There's a large Amazon distribution hub in Coffeyville. There aren't any tolls along US-169 between Kansas City and Tulsa, unlike the US-69 combination involving I-44.

The Amazon hub in Coffeyville was closed in 2015 in favor of KC.

Quote from: Road Hog on April 29, 2018, 06:32:05 PM
I always figured the opposition of these little pissant towns between McAlester and Calera was just a convenient excuse for the state of Oklahoma to not spend. These burgs cannot wield as much power as, say, a state legislator.

It's not as bad as it was 20 years ago, but "these burgs" still wield quite a bit of power in the Legislature and no one who wants to get elected from those areas can ignore them.

If those little towns along US-69 in Southern OK actually have any real political clout it's only a matter of time before that clout literally dies with those who were politically connected. No young person is aching to move to bum-f### Atoka or Stringtown.

Quote from: route56The Amazon hub in Coffeyville was closed in 2015 in favor of KC.

I didn't know that distribution center closed. I guess that might explain why Amazon is building a new distribution facility out on the West side of Oklahoma City.

Even without the Amazon hub in Coffeyville, US-169 is still the most direct (and toll free) path between Kansas City and Tulsa. I can't doubt that it is drawing traffic from the bigger US-69 corridor in Kansas.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 05, 2018, 01:15:47 AM
If those little towns along US-69 in Southern OK actually have any real political clout it's only a matter of time before that clout literally dies with those who were politically connected. No young person is aching to move to bum-f### Atoka or Stringtown.

Quote from: route56The Amazon hub in Coffeyville was closed in 2015 in favor of KC.

I didn't know that distribution center closed. I guess that might explain why Amazon is building a new distribution facility out on the West side of Oklahoma City.

Even without the Amazon hub in Coffeyville, US-169 is still the most direct (and toll free) path between Kansas City and Tulsa. I can't doubt that it is drawing traffic from the bigger US-69 corridor in Kansas.

US 169 would likely be the favored route from KC to Tulsa for both private and commercial use, while the tandem of US 69 and I-49 on the other side of the state line likely splits that traffic heading for the direct-to-Texas US 69 corridor.  Except for Coffeyville (can't picture that town any other way than the Eagles' Desperado album cover!), 169's pretty obstacle-free through KS.  I've always wondered if Tulsa interests ever pressed for a direct DFW-KC route through their city prior to the initial Interstate finalizations in the mid-50's (using, more or less, US 75 DFW-Tulsa and US 169 Tulsa-KC). 

I would be satisfied with US 75 south of Tulsa if they removed the traffic light in Glenpool, built an Okmulgee bypass (it would have to be on new terrain - OK 56 Loop would be nearly impossible to upgrade into a freeway), the traffic lights in Henryetta were removed, and the speed limit was raised to 70. An interchange at Preston Road would be nice, and 6 lanes from the I-244 split to south of Glenpool would be nice as well.

Plans for an 'interstate-compatible' US 75 in Sherman
http://www.kten.com/story/37104409/plans-for-an-interstate-compatible-us-75-in-sherman

Milestone in U.S. 75 upgrade timeline
http://www.kten.com/story/38835774/milestone-in-us-75-upgrade-timeline

Quote from: txstateends on August 11, 2018, 07:23:26 PM
Plans for an 'interstate-compatible' US 75 in Sherman
http://www.kten.com/story/37104409/plans-for-an-interstate-compatible-us-75-in-sherman

Milestone in U.S. 75 upgrade timeline
http://www.kten.com/story/38835774/milestone-in-us-75-upgrade-timeline

Looks like a local politico (Sherman city councilperson Shawn Teamann) up in that neck of the woods needs a bit of a refresher course in federal funding disbursement:  "If they can bring that up to interstate standards, we become eligible for federal funding.".  US 75 is already a NHS highway; it's eligible for up to 80% federal matching funds as is; improving clearances, shoulders, and lines of sight won't add anything to that -- and neither would formally getting it designated as an Interstate.  And, of course eligibility doesn't come with any guarantee; the project, if submitted, is in the hopper with all the rest. 

Also, it looks like the US 75/82 interchange will be some variant of a volleyball with frontage roads on both highways serving as the connectors (with U-turns between the frontages in place of direct left turns).  While that might work reasonably well to alleviate backups within the core of the interchange, it may be problematic for commercial traffic unless the curvature radius of the U's is sufficient to accommodate tractor-trailers (saw several mounting the curb on the I-10 U-turns in El Paso over the years). 

I thought that US-75 was already up to Interstate-quality freeway standards from Dallas to the Red River. What features on that segment of highway are not up to snuff? Design-wise it looks no different than other freeways in the DFW area bearing Interstate markers.

Regarding the US-75/US-82 interchange in Sherman, it is already a "volleyball" connected only by frontage roads along both highways. The US-75 component already has Texas-style U-turns ahead of the signal-controlled intersections.

The interchange really should be upgraded to a stack interchange with direct-connect flyover ramps. But there is a big question whether or not businesses sitting on the four corners of the interchange would have to be cleared to make room for the ramps. Three of the businesses are convenience stores with big fuel canopies. The NE corner has a Verizon Wireless store. Could the ramps actually span over the tops of these existing businesses? The TX-114/TX-121 interchange in Grapevine has one long ramp that goes over some business parking lots (but not directly over the tops of the buildings). For obvious reasons that long ramp has high fencing along the portions going over the parking lots.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2018, 11:35:35 AM
I thought that US-75 was already up to Interstate-quality freeway standards from Dallas to the Red River. What features on that segment of highway are not up to snuff? Design-wise it looks no different than other freeways in the DFW area bearing Interstate markers.

Regarding the US-75/US-82 interchange in Sherman, it is already a "volleyball" connected only by frontage roads along both highways. The US-75 component already has Texas-style U-turns ahead of the signal-controlled intersections.

The interchange really should be upgraded to a stack interchange with direct-connect flyover ramps. But there is a big question whether or not businesses sitting on the four corners of the interchange would have to be cleared to make room for the ramps. Three of the businesses are convenience stores with big fuel canopies. The NE corner has a Verizon Wireless store. Could the ramps actually span over the tops of these existing businesses? The TX-114/TX-121 interchange in Grapevine has one long ramp that goes over some business parking lots (but not directly over the tops of the buildings). For obvious reasons that long ramp has high fencing along the portions going over the parking lots.

From what the article states, the volleyball configuration will be retained, but it appears the goal is to eliminate left turns at the intersections of the US 75 and US 82 frontage roads by placing U-turn facilities outside the interchange "box" for this purpose:  for example, traffic NB on 75 intending to turn WB on 82 would get off on their frontage road, take a right turn at the US 82 EB frontage road, make a U-turn on an newly constructed bridge over US 82 that would put them on the WB frontage road, and from there segue onto WB 82.  It's a bit convoluted, but apparently backups within the volleyball "box" have reached the critical point.  Obviously, this is an interim plan; but like with the I-35/US 190 volleyball in Temple, development at the intersection is problematic for upgrade to a "stack" with flyovers.  Now the Sherman situation doesn't seem as dire as Temple due to the fact the facilities arrayed along the frontage roads are quite a bit more spread out than those in Temple; still, some removal of businesses would be necessary -- and it looks like TXDOT isn't ready to do that right now.

Unless there are some underheight overcrossings along the route, it seems the main non-Interstate-standard issue for US 75 is the lack of inner shoulders north of US 82; that appears to be something that can readily be remedied.  But one thing the article failed to cite is any push to actually designate an Interstate over US 75 (ostensibly a I-45 extension); the project seems to be to simply raise US 75 standards to match Interstate criteria.  Although there is precedent for I-designations that simply extend to the state line and stop there pending action from the adjacent state (it looks like NC will have a few of those in the near term), in this case the only rationale to so designate US 75 in TX would be to utilize it as an "end run" around the I-345 teardown efforts in Dallas.  Otherwise, such a designation over a recognized existing highway would be pointless -- unless the goal was to blatantly "knock on OK's door" with I-45 in an effort to provoke OK into actively following suit and proceeding with their segment.  Now -- whether that's an effective tactic remains to be seen;  NC's actions, particularly with I-73 & I-87, haven't reached that point yet -- so it's too early to come to any conclusions in that venue.   

Quote from: sparker on August 13, 2018, 12:25:22 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2018, 11:35:35 AM
I thought that US-75 was already up to Interstate-quality freeway standards from Dallas to the Red River. What features on that segment of highway are not up to snuff? Design-wise it looks no different than other freeways in the DFW area bearing Interstate markers.

Regarding the US-75/US-82 interchange in Sherman, it is already a "volleyball" connected only by frontage roads along both highways. The US-75 component already has Texas-style U-turns ahead of the signal-controlled intersections.

The interchange really should be upgraded to a stack interchange with direct-connect flyover ramps. But there is a big question whether or not businesses sitting on the four corners of the interchange would have to be cleared to make room for the ramps. Three of the businesses are convenience stores with big fuel canopies. The NE corner has a Verizon Wireless store. Could the ramps actually span over the tops of these existing businesses? The TX-114/TX-121 interchange in Grapevine has one long ramp that goes over some business parking lots (but not directly over the tops of the buildings). For obvious reasons that long ramp has high fencing along the portions going over the parking lots.

From what the article states, the volleyball configuration will be retained, but it appears the goal is to eliminate left turns at the intersections of the US 75 and US 82 frontage roads by placing U-turn facilities outside the interchange "box" for this purpose:  for example, traffic NB on 75 intending to turn WB on 82 would get off on their frontage road, take a right turn at the US 82 EB frontage road, make a U-turn on an newly constructed bridge over US 82 that would put them on the WB frontage road, and from there segue onto WB 82.  It's a bit convoluted, but apparently backups within the volleyball "box" have reached the critical point.  Obviously, this is an interim plan; but like with the I-35/US 190 volleyball in Temple, development at the intersection is problematic for upgrade to a "stack" with flyovers.  Now the Sherman situation doesn't seem as dire as Temple due to the fact the facilities arrayed along the frontage roads are quite a bit more spread out than those in Temple; still, some removal of businesses would be necessary -- and it looks like TXDOT isn't ready to do that right now.

Unless there are some underheight overcrossings along the route, it seems the main non-Interstate-standard issue for US 75 is the lack of inner shoulders north of US 82; that appears to be something that can readily be remedied.  But one thing the article failed to cite is any push to actually designate an Interstate over US 75 (ostensibly a I-45 extension); the project seems to be to simply raise US 75 standards to match Interstate criteria.  Although there is precedent for I-designations that simply extend to the state line and stop there pending action from the adjacent state (it looks like NC will have a few of those in the near term), in this case the only rationale to so designate US 75 in TX would be to utilize it as an "end run" around the I-345 teardown efforts in Dallas.  Otherwise, such a designation over a recognized existing highway would be pointless -- unless the goal was to blatantly "knock on OK's door" with I-45 in an effort to provoke OK into actively following suit and proceeding with their segment.  Now -- whether that's an effective tactic remains to be seen;  NC's actions, particularly with I-73 & I-87, haven't reached that point yet -- so it's too early to come to any conclusions in that venue.   

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6397956,-96.6159233,3a,75y,18.54h,80.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9DZiVMcbC8XNqHqVy7bABA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This bridge is way substandard. 11 ft lanes, no shoulders on either side.

There are Interstate bridges here in Oklahoma that aren't up to current standards. At least that one in Sherman has a very likely shot at being replaced.

Here's a couple links related to the US-75/US-82 interchange in Sherman:
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/paris/us75-corridor-study.html
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/par/us75/032218-ultimateschematic5.pdf

I think Interstate 45 being extended to Oklahoma is as likely as extending Interstate 40 west of Barstow, California.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 14, 2018, 04:42:35 PM
I think Interstate 45 being extended to Oklahoma is as likely as extending Interstate 40 west of Barstow, California.

Applies equally to each concept:  near term (next 15 years or so), doubtful.  Longer term -- distinct possibility (especially with regards to I-40/CA -- if Bakersfield continues to grow at its current rate).  Some sort of political sea change would be required in OK; otherwise, it's vaguely possible but not probable. 

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 14, 2018, 04:42:35 PM
I think Interstate 45 being extended to Oklahoma is as likely as extending Interstate 40 west of Barstow, California.

Id guess the difference is California could easily find the money to build such an extension of the will was there. In Oklahoma, neither the will nor the money exists. I would suggest tolls on an I-45 extension all the way to to Tulsa, but Tulsa has so many tolled roads, even the existing interstate is tolled, so I feel bad for Tulsa.

One bright side about the turnpikes in Oklahoma: the toll cost per mile is a bargain compared with other toll roads in the country. Oklahoma was way behind as well with gasoline taxes. The state legislature recently gave them a bump of 3¢ per gallon for regular gasoline and 6¢ for diesel -the first fuel tax hikes in over 25 years. Those hikes still aren't enough to catch up with 25 years worth of highway building/maintenance cost inflation.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 15, 2018, 01:40:27 AM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 14, 2018, 04:42:35 PM
I think Interstate 45 being extended to Oklahoma is as likely as extending Interstate 40 west of Barstow, California.

Id guess the difference is California could easily find the money to build such an extension of the will was there. In Oklahoma, neither the will nor the money exists. I would suggest tolls on an I-45 extension all the way to to Tulsa, but Tulsa has so many tolled roads, even the existing interstate is tolled, so I feel bad for Tulsa.

While CA may have access to more funding, these days they seem to be prone to just sitting on whatever cash there is rather than spending it on significant projects.  At any time there are a few "major" projects happening statewide:  the Kramer Junction CA 58 bypass, the Petaluma Narrows upgrade on US 101, the reconstruction of the I-80/I-680/CA 12 interchange at Cordelia, and the continuing improvement of I-5 south of L.A.  Except for the "border" projects (CA 905/CA 11) that are on a coordination schedule with Mexico, most of the available funds are going into maintenance and "spot" projects dealing with discrepancies at particular problematic locations (as it should be).  Once the Kramer section of 58 is done, Caltrans will have a typical opening ceremony (probably at the 395 interchange), open it to traffic hours later, and that'll be it for significant projects on that corridor; it'll be at minimum a 4-lane expressway from Bakersfield to the eastern terminus at I-15.  Provoking continued interest in going back and upgrading what's already on the ground will require a combination of time, pressure from local and major commercial interests, and igniting the political will to take action.

The one thing the CA corridor has going for it is lack of pointed opposition (general kvetching from the usual suspects notwithstanding); there was a general consensus that it needed to have the last few obstacles removed (Hinkley and Kramer) to become a safe traffic-signal-free facility with sufficient capacity to handle the volume of commercial traffic it was seeing.  In that respect it's much more advanced than the US 69/75 corridor in OK, which still has traffic schlepping down city streets in more than one location -- and vocal opposition to altering that status quo.   A number of local commercial interests prefer the steady stream of vehicles past their establishments; ostensibly enough of those patronize those places to support their continued existence.  And this being Oklahoma, they probably also have good reason to not expect much in the way of public monetary assistance to move their businesses to bypass interchange locations where the potential for continued profitability would be greater.  So the recourse is to convey their opposition to freeway bypass projects upstream through their representatives, the media, or likely both; so far, for the most part it's paid off; the improvements have moved south to McAlester and north through Durant, but everything in between is still as it has been for decades.  Unless something drastic happens to upset that equilibrium, nothing's going to change.       

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 15, 2018, 01:53:04 PM
One bright side about the turnpikes in Oklahoma: the toll cost per mile is a bargain compared with other toll roads in the country. Oklahoma was way behind as well with gasoline taxes. The state legislature recently gave them a bump of 3¢ per gallon for regular gasoline and 6¢ for diesel -the first fuel tax hikes in over 25 years. Those hikes still aren't enough to catch up with 25 years worth of highway building/maintenance cost inflation.

At the same time, wasn't 3¢ from the general fund reallocated from transportation to education? So the tax increase is neutral as regards the highway fund.

Quote from: Scott5114At the same time, wasn't 3¢ from the general fund reallocated from transportation to education? So the tax increase is neutral as regards the highway fund.

Yes. Supposedly that reallocation is only supposed to go on for a couple or so years and then get directed back to transportation. Supposedly. So many people in this state have no idea what a road costs to build or maintain. They just think the people at the capitol are stuffing their pockets with taxpayer money. For all I know they may vote to rescind the fuel tax hike by the time the DOT is set to gain any benefit from it.

Meanwhile, after years worth of destructively deep budget cuts this little funding boost for education is like sticking a band-aid on the stump of an amputated leg. I wouldn't put it past our flag-waving 'murica state legislature using the gas tax bump as a reason to make further cuts to education from the traditional funding sources. A bunch of those guys view public education as communism and want it all replaced with private/charter schools. The trouble is most young families in Oklahoma can't remotely afford to put kids in an acceptably good quality private school. And good luck with the arrangement of vouchers and pop-up charter schools. Qualified teachers have been leaving Oklahoma in droves. Oklahoma is turning into a difficult place for middle and lower income families to raise children. Over the long term that won't be great for the state's economy and ability to attract and maintain a good labor force.

Quote from: sparkerThe one thing the CA corridor has going for it is lack of pointed opposition (general kvetching from the usual suspects notwithstanding); there was a general consensus that it needed to have the last few obstacles removed (Hinkley and Kramer) to become a safe traffic-signal-free facility with sufficient capacity to handle the volume of commercial traffic it was seeing. In that respect it's much more advanced than the US 69/75 corridor in OK, which still has traffic schlepping down city streets in more than one location -- and vocal opposition to altering that status quo. A number of local commercial interests prefer the steady stream of vehicles past their establishments; ostensibly enough of those patronize those places to support their continued existence. And this being Oklahoma, they probably also have good reason to not expect much in the way of public monetary assistance to move their businesses to bypass interchange locations where the potential for continued profitability would be greater. So the recourse is to convey their opposition to freeway bypass projects upstream through their representatives, the media, or likely both; so far, for the most part it's paid off; the improvements have moved south to McAlester and north through Durant, but everything in between is still as it has been for decades. Unless something drastic happens to upset that equilibrium, nothing's going to change.

Oh, a number of drastic things could happen to upset the equilibrium. I've previously stated a grisly-enough fatality accident along US-69 could force upgrades. I don't know, in that case it might take the fatalities involving loved-ones of certain politically connected types who have been obstructing improvements to US-69. They may not care if the splattered drivers are out of state residents. The little towns like Atoka and Stringtown aren't exactly attracting new residents. Very few areas inside Oklahoma (except OKC & Tulsa) are retaining young adults; many are leaving for Texas or other states. In short, those towns could literally die off.

Then there's the wild cards of other Interstate corridors nearby getting built into service. The folks along US-69 act like they're along the only "good" path from Texas to the North & Northeast US. For now they have a kinda-sorta captive audience. Eventually I-49 will be built from Texarkana to Fort Smith. Eventually I-57 will be completed between Sikeston and Walnut Ridge. Either corridor could pull a bunch of traffic off US-69. Completion of I-69 & I-369 in East Texas will pull yet even more long distance traffic away from the US-69 corridor. Many long distance travelers have a strong dislike for US-69, with all its stop lights, speed zones and speed traps. Heck, improvements along I-44 between Oklahoma City and Tulsa alone might be enough to pull a noticeable amount of traffic off US-69.

Those old farts in those little towns had better realize that time keeps marching on while they keep living in the past. If they don't want their highway corridor to improve eventually a bunch of traffic (and business that goes with it) will find a different route, maybe even completely outside Oklahoma.

At the risk of slightly venturing into fictional territory, a simple eastern N-S bypass of OKC, allowing I-35 traffic the chance to avoid the downtown "maze" and provide more efficient access to I-44, might itself be at least a partial alternative to a general US 69/I-45 upgrade.  OK posters would know better than I about whether such a facility has ever been suggested or even proposed; please enlighten if possible -- thanks!

Quote from: sparker on August 16, 2018, 02:20:15 PM
At the risk of slightly venturing into fictional territory, a simple eastern N-S bypass of OKC, allowing I-35 traffic the chance to avoid the downtown "maze" and provide more efficient access to I-44, might itself be at least a partial alternative to a general US 69/I-45 upgrade.  OK posters would know better than I about whether such a facility has ever been suggested or even proposed; please enlighten if possible -- thanks!

If you look at the plans for EOC connector under construction, they included stubs on each end, one at I-44 and one at I-40, that continue on for a quarter mile or so. By that, it would appear they have plans to extend the turnpike in both directions eventually and create a functional bypass for OKC. It is needed.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 16, 2018, 02:29:35 PM

Quote from: sparker on August 16, 2018, 02:20:15 PM
At the risk of slightly venturing into fictional territory, a simple eastern N-S bypass of OKC, allowing I-35 traffic the chance to avoid the downtown "maze" and provide more efficient access to I-44, might itself be at least a partial alternative to a general US 69/I-45 upgrade.  OK posters would know better than I about whether such a facility has ever been suggested or even proposed; please enlighten if possible -- thanks!

If you look at the plans for EOC connector under construction, they included stubs on each end, one at I-44 and one at I-40, that continue on for a quarter mile or so. By that, it would appear they have plans to extend the turnpike in both directions eventually and create a functional bypass for OKC. It is needed.

Seems like the plan is to extend down to Highway 9 at Little Axe. Combined with upgrades (including a new South Canadian River bridge for OK-9), this would functionally complete a southeast Outer Beltway. It would certainly be the preferred Norman-Tulsa route, likely the Fort Worth-Tulsa route, and might even pull some Dallas traffic.

OTA has started construction on the Eastern OK County Corridor. If you drive I-44 between OKC & Tulsa you'll pass the early stages of interchange construction.

I would hope this kind of remote Eastern OK county turnpike has larger plans of being extended South and Southwest to connect into I-35 and even I-44. Otherwise it's just going to be kind of a waste. I'd never use it otherwise.

As for utilizing OK-9 into Norman, presumably to connect into I-35, I think that's going to be a tall order (maybe literally). Between I-35 and Chautauqua Ave there's not enough room for both frontage roads and freeway main lanes to exist. The real problem is space for on/off ramps. There's not enough room for modern on/off ramp designs without taking properties. Which intersections get served with interchanges and which ones simply get blocked off or bridged over? You have SW 24th Ave, McGee Drive, Imhoff Road, South Berry Road and Chautauqua Ave. SW 24th Ave is right next to I-35, so it would be tough to build a full service exit there. Plus Total Beverage Services has a big industrial building right on one of the corners of that intersection. Maybe they could bridge SW 24th Avenue over OK-9 at that spot. Anyway, converting OK-9 on the South side of Norman into a freeway would be a very difficult task, both in terms of geometry and politics.

OK-9 leading over the H.E. Bailey Turnpike Extension isn't much better of a situation either. Riverwind Casino and other properties may be encroaching the highway too closely for a freeway upgrade.

I think if they looped the new Eastern turnpike down and West to connect into I-35 they would choose one of two options. One would be using what looks like a fairly open corridor between Norman & Moore running near Franklin Road. That would serve metro OKC traffic pretty well. The other choice is a path farther South of Norman, either between Norman & Noble or even farther South than that. If the goal is getting traffic from Texas to bypass OKC to the East then maybe the new turnpike should connect into I-35 closer to Purcell (where I-35 bends from going North to more Northwest).

Oklahoma is becoming the land of turnpikes. 
And some get little usage.
I-44 from OKC to MO line were to be paid for in the 70s.  I know they had to put them back up to secure money for the HEB. 
I also know of the idea that users should have to pay for the highways.  I thought we did at the gas pump.  Also, if all highway taxes were still put into a fund to be only used for highways our roads would be better.  Instead federal and state are put into general fund.

Probably this has been covered but I have been wondering for years if I-44 in Texas is turning towards Amarillo or Lubbock?  I appears on some maps to be turning towards Amarillo.   

Quote from: leroys73 on August 18, 2018, 09:45:46 AM
Probably this has been covered but I have been wondering for years if I-44 in Texas is turning towards Amarillo or Lubbock?

It's not.

Quote from: leroys73 on August 18, 2018, 09:45:46 AMI also know of the idea that users should have to pay for the highways.  I thought we did at the gas pump.  Also, if all highway taxes were still put into a fund to be only used for highways our roads would be better.  Instead federal and state are put into general fund.

Federal fuel taxes go directly into the Highway Trust Fund in their entirety.  There used to be diversions for deficit reduction during the Bush 41 and Clinton administrations, but those were abolished 21 years ago.  Some of the HTF money (11.7%-15.6% depending on the gasoline/diesel mix) goes to mass transit.  The real problem with the HTF is that fuel taxes have not been increased for almost 25 years now (still at 1994 rates of 18.4c/gallon for gasoline and 24.4c/gallon for diesel), so for almost 10 years now it has required subsidies from the general fund.

Some states do fuel tax diversions, while others don't.  Kansas used to be quite good about avoiding diversions and repaying any amounts diverted, but that came to an end with Brownback.  (There is a movement on to repay the Brownback-era diversions, which currently stand at $2 billion.)  AIUI, Oklahoma diverts like mad, partly because education is seriously underfunded, while Texas (with no state income tax) has traditionally split the proceeds three-quarters to highways and one-quarter to education.  (Is the same true for recent increases in the fuel tax?  I seem to recall them being completely ringfenced for highways.)

Quote from: leroys73 on August 18, 2018, 09:45:46 AM
Oklahoma is becoming the land of turnpikes. 
And some get little usage.
I-44 from OKC to MO line were to be paid for in the 70s.  I know they had to put them back up to secure money for the HEB. 
I also know of the idea that users should have to pay for the highways.  I thought we did at the gas pump.  Also, if all highway taxes were still put into a fund to be only used for highways our roads would be better.  Instead federal and state are put into general fund.

Probably this has been covered but I have been wondering for years if I-44 in Texas is turning towards Amarillo or Lubbock?  I appears on some maps to be turning towards Amarillo.   

At its western terminus at the US 82/277/281/287 interchange in Wichita Falls, I-44 is actually heading SSE.  As far as future extensions, at this time there aren't any official planning efforts; what speculation there is usually centers on a continuation down US 277 toward Abilene and I-20. 

I could see that.  It even makes sense.

Lawton and WF would like the added business it would bring because of people traveling from NE to SW using that route instead of fighting through the DFW metroplex via I-35W, I-820, I-30, I-20.  As of right now US 277 form WF to Abilene is pretty good.  I would use that route now if I was traveling from NE to SW or reverse.     

I find it amusing when traveling down from Lawton to WF the signage is West 44 but it is more south than west and ends up SSE.  I guess the original plans for interstates to be increasing numbers from north to south and west to east.  Then even numbers running east/west and odds north/south was not a hard rule.  There are several other places those rules don't hold true.  I-69 is a real wild one.   

As the country's population grows and needs change the original plans must be altered.  Who would have thought 70 years ago that 4 lane highways would have been over crowded. 

Life goes on as does what might be called progress.

Quote from: leroys73 on August 18, 2018, 01:01:47 PM
I could see that.  It even makes sense.

Lawton and WF would like the added business it would bring because of people traveling from NE to SW using that route instead of fighting through the DFW metroplex via I-35W, I-820, I-30, I-20.  As of right now US 277 form WF to Abilene is pretty good.  I would use that route now if I was traveling from NE to SW or reverse.     

I find it amusing when traveling down from Lawton to WF the signage is West 44 but it is more south than west and ends up SSE.  I guess the original plans for interstates to be increasing numbers from north to south and west to east.  Then even numbers running east/west and odds north/south was not a hard rule.  There are several other places those rules don't hold true.  I-69 is a real wild one.   

As the country's population grows and needs change the original plans must be altered.  Who would have thought 70 years ago that 4 lane highways would have been over crowded. 

Life goes on as does what might be called progress.

Most of the rationale for a I-44 extension to I-20 at Abilene does center around provision of a "cutoff" for I-20 (and I-10 to the west) traffic to head to Midwest distribution points without having to endure DFW congestion (and vice-versa, of course).  But local & regional TX politics figure into the mix, of course -- and the fact that the US 277 corridor is seeing some improvement over time including freeway segments in and around Wichita Falls bolsters the notion that it's a viable corridor with some degree of attention from TXDOT and others holding the purse strings.  Corridors in TX tend to be developed when there is broad & visible support, both within and outside of official agencies. 

I doubt Interstate 44 will be extended anytime soon, just like I doubt Interstate 45 will be extended into Oklahoma anytime soon.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 18, 2018, 03:17:02 PM
I doubt Interstate 44 will be extended anytime soon, just like I doubt Interstate 45 will be extended into Oklahoma anytime soon.

What about I-45 to the Oklahoma state line? It's all-freeway, Texas is known for creating more Interstates, and the extension would prevent current I-345 from being demolished.

Quote from: 1 on August 18, 2018, 03:21:05 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 18, 2018, 03:17:02 PM
I doubt Interstate 44 will be extended anytime soon, just like I doubt Interstate 45 will be extended into Oklahoma anytime soon.

What about I-45 to the Oklahoma state line? It's all-freeway, Texas is known for creating more Interstates, and the extension would prevent current I-345 from being demolished.

This is addressed up-thread; there's some substandard sections in and around Sherman that would need to be addressed prior to seeking an Interstate designation.  The avoidance of an I-345 teardown is certainly an upside; but leaving the designation hanging at the state line, while possibly (although not probably) prompting corresponding activity within OK to extend the corridor (at least to I-40, which is pre-authorized via prior federal statute), makes the thing sort of a pointless exercise.  But this is Texas, after all -- we'll just have to wait and see!   

I-45 could be extended to end at US 69 just south of the Red River. Interstates are supposed to end at major highways, and US 69 would fit.

Or US 82 in Sherman, when the Sherman work is done.  Either way, there are several precedents for that (I-44 in Wichita Falls, I-27 in Lubbock, I-26 between I-81 and the TN-VA border, I-72 in Hannibal, etc), and who knows, maybe that kind of move could show OK that having an interstate in that corridor is worth seeking the funding for (and would be nice to see in most of our lifetimes anyway).  And it's much more of a logical/needed interstate corridor than whatever happens with I-14.

Quote from: txstateends on August 18, 2018, 04:40:32 PM
Or US 82 in Sherman, when the Sherman work is done.  Either way, there are several precedents for that (I-44 in Wichita Falls, I-27 in Lubbock, I-26 between I-81 and the TN-VA border, I-72 in Hannibal, etc), and who knows, maybe that kind of move could show OK that having an interstate in that corridor is worth seeking the funding for (and would be nice to see in most of our lifetimes anyway).  And it's much more of a logical/needed interstate corridor than whatever happens with I-14.

Or since it doesn't affect those folks in the speed traps farther north on US 69, OK might be persuaded to sign I-45 as far north as US 70 in Durant -- unless they're afraid of the "nose through the door" syndrome.  That would give the route an appropriate -- hopefully temporary -- ending point.  Would also relieve I-45 of its singular status as the only intrastate X5 in the process!     

Quote from: sparker on August 19, 2018, 04:12:30 AM

Quote from: txstateends on August 18, 2018, 04:40:32 PM
Or US 82 in Sherman, when the Sherman work is done.  Either way, there are several precedents for that (I-44 in Wichita Falls, I-27 in Lubbock, I-26 between I-81 and the TN-VA border, I-72 in Hannibal, etc), and who knows, maybe that kind of move could show OK that having an interstate in that corridor is worth seeking the funding for (and would be nice to see in most of our lifetimes anyway).  And it's much more of a logical/needed interstate corridor than whatever happens with I-14.

Or since it doesn't affect those folks in the speed traps farther north on US 69, OK might be persuaded to sign I-45 as far north as US 70 in Durant -- unless they're afraid of the "nose through the door" syndrome.  That would give the route an appropriate -- hopefully temporary -- ending point.  Would also relieve I-45 of its singular status as the only intrastate X5 in the process!     

That would give the Choctaw casino a big new marketing tool to plug, also.

Quote from: sparker on August 19, 2018, 04:12:30 AM

Quote from: txstateends on August 18, 2018, 04:40:32 PM
Or US 82 in Sherman, when the Sherman work is done.  Either way, there are several precedents for that (I-44 in Wichita Falls, I-27 in Lubbock, I-26 between I-81 and the TN-VA border, I-72 in Hannibal, etc), and who knows, maybe that kind of move could show OK that having an interstate in that corridor is worth seeking the funding for (and would be nice to see in most of our lifetimes anyway).  And it's much more of a logical/needed interstate corridor than whatever happens with I-14.

Or since it doesn't affect those folks in the speed traps farther north on US 69, OK might be persuaded to sign I-45 as far north as US 70 in Durant -- unless they're afraid of the "nose through the door" syndrome.  That would give the route an appropriate -- hopefully temporary -- ending point.  Would also relieve I-45 of its singular status as the only intrastate X5 in the process!     

There are still a few at-grade crossings south of Durant so those would have to be addressed at some point.

Quote from: US71 on August 19, 2018, 09:51:43 AM

Quote from: sparker on August 19, 2018, 04:12:30 AM

Quote from: txstateends on August 18, 2018, 04:40:32 PM
Or US 82 in Sherman, when the Sherman work is done.  Either way, there are several precedents for that (I-44 in Wichita Falls, I-27 in Lubbock, I-26 between I-81 and the TN-VA border, I-72 in Hannibal, etc), and who knows, maybe that kind of move could show OK that having an interstate in that corridor is worth seeking the funding for (and would be nice to see in most of our lifetimes anyway).  And it's much more of a logical/needed interstate corridor than whatever happens with I-14.

Or since it doesn't affect those folks in the speed traps farther north on US 69, OK might be persuaded to sign I-45 as far north as US 70 in Durant -- unless they're afraid of the "nose through the door" syndrome.  That would give the route an appropriate -- hopefully temporary -- ending point.  Would also relieve I-45 of its singular status as the only intrastate X5 in the process!     

There are still a few at-grade crossings south of Durant so those would have to be addressed at some point.

Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken, but I seem to have read that US 69/75 is slated for full-freeway upgrades that would complete the route as such from the state line to the Durant bypass; don't know whether these are projects that have been let, are in the queue for future years' funding, or simply programmed but unfunded.   

Quote from: sparker on August 19, 2018, 04:00:02 PM

Quote from: US71 on August 19, 2018, 09:51:43 AM

Quote from: sparker on August 19, 2018, 04:12:30 AM

Quote from: txstateends on August 18, 2018, 04:40:32 PM
Or US 82 in Sherman, when the Sherman work is done.  Either way, there are several precedents for that (I-44 in Wichita Falls, I-27 in Lubbock, I-26 between I-81 and the TN-VA border, I-72 in Hannibal, etc), and who knows, maybe that kind of move could show OK that having an interstate in that corridor is worth seeking the funding for (and would be nice to see in most of our lifetimes anyway).  And it's much more of a logical/needed interstate corridor than whatever happens with I-14.

Or since it doesn't affect those folks in the speed traps farther north on US 69, OK might be persuaded to sign I-45 as far north as US 70 in Durant -- unless they're afraid of the "nose through the door" syndrome.  That would give the route an appropriate -- hopefully temporary -- ending point.  Would also relieve I-45 of its singular status as the only intrastate X5 in the process!     

There are still a few at-grade crossings south of Durant so those would have to be addressed at some point.

Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken, but I seem to have read that US 69/75 is slated for full-freeway upgrades that would complete the route as such from the state line to the Durant bypass; don't know whether these are projects that have been let, are in the queue for future years' funding, or simply programmed but unfunded.   

I'm not sure exactly how much will be upgraded in the near-future.  I think it's most of Calera and by the Choctaw casino.  If that's correct, that would leave some work to do between Colbert and Calera.  I haven't heard what exactly will be done in Calera, but there's some room between the current main lanes and the parallel railroad track for a freeway setup IIRR.  The crossing by the 2 travel centers/smoke shop/north entrance to the casino is to have a grade-separation as part of the same work (and should already have been done ages ago IMO) to get rid of that f-in signal light.  I'm not sure how far along this work is toward the construction phase.

Construction for the Calera Bypass (which really isn't a bypass, but a freeway upgrade of that part of US-69) is supposed to begin in March of 2019. The freeway upgrade will begin at the Durant Bypass and go down through Calera and end at Chickasaw Road just South of town. Chickasaw Rd will still be an at-grade intersection. That will leave a freeway gap between Colbert with around 10 different at-grade crossings and intersections. The bright side is all the existing property is set back far enough for freeway upgrades due to partial frontage road segments.

Some residents in Calera are not happy with the freeway upgrade because there will be no full service exit for Main Street. Slip ramps from frontage roads will provide access, but their complaint is the ramps are too far away from Main Street. Critics say their town is going to be bypassed and they'll lose a lot of business.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2018, 01:07:31 PM
Construction for the Calera Bypass (which really isn't a bypass, but a freeway upgrade of that part of US-69) is supposed to begin in March of 2019. The freeway upgrade will begin at the Durant Bypass and go down through Calera and end at Chickasaw Road just South of town. Chickasaw Rd will still be an at-grade intersection. That will leave a freeway gap between Colbert with around 10 different at-grade crossings and intersections. The bright side is all the existing property is set back far enough for freeway upgrades due to partial frontage road segments.

Some residents in Calera are not happy with the freeway upgrade because there will be no full service exit for Main Street. Slip ramps from frontage roads will provide access, but their complaint is the ramps are too far away from Main Street. Critics say their town is going to be bypassed and they'll lose a lot of business.

Well they need to adapt. The town is getting one full service exit, IIRC, and that should be sufficient for a town their size. They can use that opportunity to rezone and rebuild their current areas if they can find the developers and OFC the money!

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 21, 2018, 03:42:12 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2018, 01:07:31 PM
Construction for the Calera Bypass (which really isn't a bypass, but a freeway upgrade of that part of US-69) is supposed to begin in March of 2019. The freeway upgrade will begin at the Durant Bypass and go down through Calera and end at Chickasaw Road just South of town. Chickasaw Rd will still be an at-grade intersection. That will leave a freeway gap between Colbert with around 10 different at-grade crossings and intersections. The bright side is all the existing property is set back far enough for freeway upgrades due to partial frontage road segments.

Some residents in Calera are not happy with the freeway upgrade because there will be no full service exit for Main Street. Slip ramps from frontage roads will provide access, but their complaint is the ramps are too far away from Main Street. Critics say their town is going to be bypassed and they'll lose a lot of business.

Well they need to adapt. The town is getting one full service exit, IIRC, and that should be sufficient for a town their size. They can use that opportunity to rezone and rebuild their current areas if they can find the developers and OFC the money!

Seeing as how this appears to be a programmed project, the Calera business community will likely piss & moan enough to get (a) a 2nd offramp in either direction near the Main Street grade separation, or (b) compensation funds for relocation to the frontage roads.  If they have a good attorney, they may get both.  IIRC, the times I've been through there much of the commercial activities centered around RV's and modular homes; as long as those are visible from the freeway, they'll continue to draw traffic.     

Quote from: sparker on August 25, 2018, 02:50:25 AM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 21, 2018, 03:42:12 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2018, 01:07:31 PM
Construction for the Calera Bypass (which really isn't a bypass, but a freeway upgrade of that part of US-69) is supposed to begin in March of 2019. The freeway upgrade will begin at the Durant Bypass and go down through Calera and end at Chickasaw Road just South of town. Chickasaw Rd will still be an at-grade intersection. That will leave a freeway gap between Colbert with around 10 different at-grade crossings and intersections. The bright side is all the existing property is set back far enough for freeway upgrades due to partial frontage road segments.

Some residents in Calera are not happy with the freeway upgrade because there will be no full service exit for Main Street. Slip ramps from frontage roads will provide access, but their complaint is the ramps are too far away from Main Street. Critics say their town is going to be bypassed and they'll lose a lot of business.

Well they need to adapt. The town is getting one full service exit, IIRC, and that should be sufficient for a town their size. They can use that opportunity to rezone and rebuild their current areas if they can find the developers and OFC the money!

Seeing as how this appears to be a programmed project, the Calera business community will likely piss & moan enough to get (a) a 2nd offramp in either direction near the Main Street grade separation, or (b) compensation funds for relocation to the frontage roads.  If they have a good attorney, they may get both.  IIRC, the times I've been through there much of the commercial activities centered around RV's and modular homes; as long as those are visible from the freeway, they'll continue to draw traffic.     

Eh, as long as the proper acceleration and deceleration lanes are added, it shouldn't make a difference and I don't think Durant needs to worry about heavy sprawl anytime soon! Lol. But it sure is amazing such a little town has so much say here.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 25, 2018, 05:28:28 AM

Quote from: sparker on August 25, 2018, 02:50:25 AM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 21, 2018, 03:42:12 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2018, 01:07:31 PM
Construction for the Calera Bypass (which really isn't a bypass, but a freeway upgrade of that part of US-69) is supposed to begin in March of 2019. The freeway upgrade will begin at the Durant Bypass and go down through Calera and end at Chickasaw Road just South of town. Chickasaw Rd will still be an at-grade intersection. That will leave a freeway gap between Colbert with around 10 different at-grade crossings and intersections. The bright side is all the existing property is set back far enough for freeway upgrades due to partial frontage road segments.

Some residents in Calera are not happy with the freeway upgrade because there will be no full service exit for Main Street. Slip ramps from frontage roads will provide access, but their complaint is the ramps are too far away from Main Street. Critics say their town is going to be bypassed and they'll lose a lot of business.

Well they need to adapt. The town is getting one full service exit, IIRC, and that should be sufficient for a town their size. They can use that opportunity to rezone and rebuild their current areas if they can find the developers and OFC the money!

Seeing as how this appears to be a programmed project, the Calera business community will likely piss & moan enough to get (a) a 2nd offramp in either direction near the Main Street grade separation, or (b) compensation funds for relocation to the frontage roads.  If they have a good attorney, they may get both.  IIRC, the times I've been through there much of the commercial activities centered around RV's and modular homes; as long as those are visible from the freeway, they'll continue to draw traffic.     

Eh, as long as the proper acceleration and deceleration lanes are added, it shouldn't make a difference and I don't think Durant needs to worry about heavy sprawl anytime soon! Lol. But it sure is amazing such a little town has so much say here.

And then there's the fact that in the next couple of counties north from there, a couple of towns (and well-noted speed traps) Stringtown and KIowa have been the driving force against US 69 upgrades for decades.  In OK, it seems that once political connections are forged, they're hard to dislodge.  But at least down in Bryan County, some developmental activity is occurring -- albeit not without some controversy, which would be expected.  I suppose we'll all just have to see how ODOT handles the Calera controversy; while the physical configuration differs from the other towns along the potential corridor, it might provide some indication as to how far the state is willing to go to accommodate local needs while still getting their freeway! 

A 3D animated flyover of the Calera Bypass design (as of October 2017) can be viewed on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6MxkOluExA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6MxkOluExA)

The close proximity of the frontage roads to the main lanes requires slip ramps to be set back well away from signaled intersections. The current design gives the town of Calera decent on-ramp access to US-69 in both directions. However off ramp access to the Main Street intersection does indeed stink. Going Northbound the US-69 exit ramp for Calera is just past Island Bayou Creek. That's 1.2 miles South of the Main Street intersection. Any businesses at the Main Street intersection will not be visible to traffic at that exit ramp. Plus the proposed street connector bridge will be an additional visual obstruction. Going Southbound it's a similar situation. The SB off-ramp for Calera would be North of the new flyover ramp from old Bus US-69 into the US-69 main lanes. It's a mile North of the Main Street intersection. The new flyover ramp will visually block any signs or other structures near Main Street to traffic on US-69.

Braided ramps would have been a better solution, but that requires a wider ROW. This upgrade is along a pretty tight squeeze. Still, there should have been a better balance of off-ramps for Main Street in Calera. This design completely did not properly consider that at all. With construction set to begin in just a few months it looks like these slip ramp designs might be carved in stone.

Unfortunately the consequence of this type of design will give more fuel to the freeway opposition farther North in towns like Atoka and Stringtown. They'll point to how Calera got screwed and will build up horror stories how the same thing could happen in their towns. Atoka would require a new terrain bypass. Existing US-69 could be upgraded fairly easily in Stringtown, but a few properties on the West side of the road would have to be cleared.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 25, 2018, 02:04:36 PM
A 3D animated flyover of the Calera Bypass design (as of October 2017) can be viewed on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6MxkOluExA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6MxkOluExA)

The close proximity of the frontage roads to the main lanes requires slip ramps to be set back well away from signaled intersections. The current design gives the town of Calera decent on-ramp access to US-69 in both directions. However off ramp access to the Main Street intersection does indeed stink. Going Northbound the US-69 exit ramp for Calera is just past Island Bayou Creek. That's 1.2 miles South of the Main Street intersection. Any businesses at the Main Street intersection will not be visible to traffic at that exit ramp. Plus the proposed street connector bridge will be an additional visual obstruction. Going Southbound it's a similar situation. The SB off-ramp for Calera would be North of the new flyover ramp from old Bus US-69 into the US-69 main lanes. It's a mile North of the Main Street intersection. The new flyover ramp will visually block any signs or other structures near Main Street to traffic on US-69.

Braided ramps would have been a better solution, but that requires a wider ROW. This upgrade is along a pretty tight squeeze. Still, there should have been a better balance of off-ramps for Main Street in Calera. This design completely did not properly consider that at all. With construction set to begin in just a few months it looks like these slip ramp designs might be carved in stone.

Unfortunately the consequence of this type of design will give more fuel to the freeway opposition farther North in towns like Atoka and Stringtown. They'll point to how Calera got screwed and will build up horror stories how the same thing could happen in their towns. Atoka would require a new terrain bypass. Existing US-69 could be upgraded fairly easily in Stringtown, but a few properties on the West side of the road would have to be cleared.

Don't know how flexible the plans are, but it seems the ramp configuration in Calera, particularly NB, seems to be geared to that facility along the frontage road as seen at the 2:03 point in the video; possibly why the frontage road would need an on-ramp (seen at about 2:44) before the center of town.  The location of that on-ramp would make an ideal off-ramp between a quarter and half mile south of the Main Street crossing.  If that facility (presumably a cargo loading facility for trucks) needs a quasi-dedicated on-ramp, it could be inserted right after the street crossing bridge south of town; that could itself become a slip-ramp to the aforementioned new Main Street off-ramp (of course, they'd need another 12-15 feet of easement there to accommodate the slip/acceleration ramp width).   Southbound may not be as "fixable" due to the flyover on-ramp from old Business 69 -- unless ODOT could figure a way to turn that into a slip-ramp as well (it seems plenty long) with an offramp to the frontage road at its south end.

Obviously ODOT didn't think this thing through thoroughly enough, giving, as Bobby says, ammunition to other communities along the US 69 corridor to raise a stink about how the agency is treating them.  A little bit better design effort could clear many of the issues up -- but it's obvious that this project is to be "done on the (relatively) cheap" with as few structures as possible.  But the fixes would simply require a bit more land on the right side of either frontage road (and in the case of SB, hardly any at all since the acceleration lane from the flyover is extremely long).  But since the Choctaw Road casino complex seems to have ample access, I'm surprised Calera didn't demand a design change for their segment just for the sake of equity!       

Just saw the YT video.  :confused: :confused: ... not sure what to think.  There's some things that are better than what's there now, but the planners are almost doing everything but taking Calera to the doghouse.  There's no access to that overpass on the south side, Main Street gets a nice underpass but no real access, >surprise< they're getting rid of the trumpet at Bus US 69, the Cemetery Road overpass has no access except the west-side service road, oh but we're adding this cute turnaround at a bayou!  Really?  It wouldn't hurt them to treat Calera better than that.  At least there's still the grade-separation planned for the intersection at Choctaw Road.

If some enterprising OK poster could forward replies #104-115 to ODOT's inbox forthwith, that would be considered a good thing -- get some unbiased (but critical nonetheless) observations on the record, so to speak.  Not that I -- or likely anyone else on the forum -- has any illusions about the impact of our input, but it would be nice to let ODOT know that there are folks out there without a "dog in the race" that actually care about such things.  Just a thought...............

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 25, 2018, 02:04:36 PM
A 3D animated flyover of the Calera Bypass design (as of October 2017) can be viewed on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6MxkOluExA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6MxkOluExA)

Thanks for the link. This stretch of US 69-75 is going to be a Texas-style freeway with one way frontage roads and U turn ramps. It's going to be a big highway and it will certainly make Calera look more important than it is. Getting around town should be a breeze once this highway is complete.

Quote from: bugo on August 26, 2018, 08:05:26 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 25, 2018, 02:04:36 PM
A 3D animated flyover of the Calera Bypass design (as of October 2017) can be viewed on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6MxkOluExA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6MxkOluExA)

Thanks for the link. This stretch of US 69-75 is going to be a Texas-style freeway with one way frontage roads and U turn ramps. It's going to be a big highway and it will certainly make Calera look more important than it is. Getting around town should be a breeze once this highway is complete.

Getting around town once you're off the freeway won't be problematic; it's getting from the freeway to town that's the issue here.  The Calera ramps, as shown in the video, are so far away from the town itself and require so much frontage-road travel that it essentially requires a preliminary decision on the part of the driver (in both directions!) that Calera is to be the exiting destination.  A closer-in set of off-ramps (getting back on is a lesser concern) within sight of the town's attractions would be considerably more effective at enhancing commercial use of the towns' businesses by US 69/75 drivers.  A very comprehensive logo sign at the planned exits may help a little, if both restaurants, shops, and automotive service facilities could be included -- but that's a lot to put on a sign that'll be passed at speed.  Off-ramps in close proximity to the town center still are the most effective -- and fair to the town itself -- remedy.

Quote from: bugo on August 26, 2018, 08:05:26 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 25, 2018, 02:04:36 PM
A 3D animated flyover of the Calera Bypass design (as of October 2017) can be viewed on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6MxkOluExA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6MxkOluExA)

Thanks for the link. This stretch of US 69-75 is going to be a Texas-style freeway with one way frontage roads and U turn ramps. It's going to be a big highway and it will certainly make Calera look more important than it is. Getting around town should be a breeze once this highway is complete.

That's basically what was done with 69 at McAlester: slip ramps and one way service roads

It seems to me if it's just slip ramps that are an issue in Calera, those could be solved with an eraser. The whole right of way is under ODOT control and it can't be too hard to relocate them as needed. (In fact, an advance slip ramp is probably desirable for existing businesses along the way.)

Short of that ... It's common south of the Red to have to exit well before your destinaton; you just have to follow the BGSes. The locals will adjust.

Here is the link to the project on ODOT's website:

https://www.ok.gov/odot/Programs_and_Projects/Public_Meetings_and_Hearings/20170615.html

Quote from: rte66man on August 27, 2018, 08:56:38 PM
Here is the link to the project on ODOT's website:

https://www.ok.gov/odot/Programs_and_Projects/Public_Meetings_and_Hearings/20170615.html

This is kinda off topic but it could be I-45 one day so maybe not, but they had the Muskogee bypass on the upcoming projects list for a little bit after they first announced it but it has since disappeared.

Quote from: Road Hog on August 26, 2018, 08:11:29 PM
It seems to me if it's just slip ramps that are an issue in Calera, those could be solved with an eraser. The whole right of way is under ODOT control and it can't be too hard to relocate them as needed. (In fact, an advance slip ramp is probably desirable for existing businesses along the way.)

Short of that ... It's common south of the Red to have to exit well before your destinaton; you just have to follow the BGSes. The locals will adjust.

It's not the locals adjusting that poses the problem, it's the travelers on US 69 not finding their way to relevant roadside businesses because the exit ramps serving the town are too distant with the present published design. 

The Locals (not) adjusting is a major concern. If the Muskogee Bypass was canceled, so will the Calera upgrades. These towns could use some new buildings relocated closer to slip ramps. But it seems they will not negotiate.

Colbert and even Durant were completely bypassed when The Unfinished Corridor was improved. It curves toward Calera and then it curves again for Colbert. Every occurrence of a bypass is a realignment west of the towns, similar to Interstate 35. The Unfinished Corridor in Oklahoma would have been better as "The Choctaw Turnpike" west of town with a Shun Pike U.S. Highway System going through the towns. Even if they are improving the frontage roads and exits in Calera, there might still be an alternate route west of town if the high traffic increases.

As for these towns getting business from travelers:  At least I will never go on The Unfinished Corridor in Oklahoma. I will stick with Interstate 35 and The Turnpikes even if it might be longer and filled with endless road reconstruction.

ODOT simply should have designed the slip ramp configuration better. This current design is pretty stupid. It's clear the design only paid attention to traffic access needs for the Choctaw Casino and paid zero attention to Calera.

The on/off ramps before and after Main Street in Calera are just backward. The off ramp is supposed to be positioned BEFORE the destination street, not after it. If the on/off ramp types were reversed (like off ramp before main street) the design wouldn't suck so bad. Going North past Main Street, US-69 has TWO off-ramps to the frontage road before reaching the casino -counting the off ramp that overshot Main Street in Calera by close to a mile.

ODOT is going to extra expense creating a new flyover for the old Business US-69 route to dovetail into Southbound US-69. A lot of traffic leaving the casino going back toward Dallas may use the old exit/extrance to US-69 (which ODOT plans to modify) since that one is visibly closer. Without the new flyover an off ramp from Southbound US-69 could have been positioned much closer to the Main Street intersection in Calera.

I'm not sure I understand the need for the "B Street Connector" bridge on the South side of Calera. This looks like a pretty expensive bridge. It has zero direct access to the US-69 freeway. It has indirect access to the frontage roads. The money that would be spent on that thing could have been redirected to a better, braided on/off ramp design.

Quote from: In_CorrectThe Locals (not) adjusting is a major concern. If the Muskogee Bypass was canceled, so will the Calera upgrades. These towns could use some new buildings relocated closer to slip ramps. But it seems they will not negotiate.

Local businesses can't just easily pick up and move their buildings based on the whims of where highway planners want to place on/off ramps. The simple fact is the proposed design is just bonkers stupid: lots of places to get on US-69 in Calera, just no logical places to exit US-69 where exit ramps would be expected.

Anti-freeway people in towns along US-69 really need to be looking at the bigger picture view. They're worried about new freeway development bypassing their businesses. That's understandable. The thing they don't seem to understand is this: a great deal of motorists are already bypassing that entire corridor, choosing the combo of I-35 & I-44 instead. I personally wouldn't drive US-69 in Oklahoma unless I had a very specific reason to do so, otherwise I would avoid "the Unfinished Corridor." Truckers may not mind US-69. Most others hate the speed zones, speed traps and stop lights in certain locations. Long haul truckers don't have to stop very often at all; their fuel capacity dwarfs that of consumer vehicles. People in cars, pickups and SUVs stop more often. They tend to haul more people (couples, families, etc). Most of those drivers gravitate to Interstate-class roads.

Towns like Atoka, Stringtown, etc are losing business to I-35 and they probably don't realize it.

^^^^
From what I've personally experienced, much of the US 69(75) traffic is either local, commercial or intended for some destination along the corridor (Muskogee, the lakes near Checotah, etc.).  At this point, Bobby's generally correct; no one utilizes this corridor unless they have to (in commercial terms, that means overall mileage between points), the downside (slogging through towns, multiple speed traps, dodging in and out of truck traffic) is just not worth it.  Obviously, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the corridor's trajectory -- but as it sits it's all potential and little reality.  If competently planned so that both through traffic and local businesses could and would benefit from US 69 being upgraded to I-45 OK would have a corridor that would supply "a reasonable rate of return" on investment -- maybe not a "cash cow", but at least a steady income stream to the locals arrayed along the route.  But the way OK development has progressed recently (typified by the Calera mess as shown in the projections), simple competency may be too much for which to ask.  If OK doesn't do something in relatively short order -- at least before AR starts rolling on the I-49 "missing link" -- the opportunity will likely be lost.   

Quote from: sparker on August 28, 2018, 06:16:32 PM
^^^^
From what I've personally experienced, much of the US 69(75) traffic is either local, commercial or intended for some destination along the corridor (Muskogee, the lakes near Checotah, etc.).  At this point, Bobby's generally correct; no one utilizes this corridor unless they have to (in commercial terms, that means overall mileage between points), the downside (slogging through towns, multiple speed traps, dodging in and out of truck traffic) is just not worth it.  Obviously, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the corridor's trajectory -- but as it sits it's all potential and little reality.  If competently planned so that both through traffic and local businesses could and would benefit from US 69 being upgraded to I-45 OK would have a corridor that would supply "a reasonable rate of return" on investment -- maybe not a "cash cow", but at least a steady income stream to the locals arrayed along the route.  But the way OK development has progressed recently (typified by the Calera mess as shown in the projections), simple competency may be too much for which to ask.  If OK doesn't do something in relatively short order -- at least before AR starts rolling on the I-49 "missing link" -- the opportunity will likely be lost.   

Oh, I'd bet that the I-49 missing link will be missing for a couple of decades at least, if it's up to Arkansas to fund it without a massive federal match.

Meanwhile I-44 is starting to be improved in Oklahoma between Tulsa and OKC. As the widening project proceeds it may draw more trucks and other traffic currently using US-69 to get from Dallas to Big Cabin. If the Eastern OKC turnpike gets built out properly: extending down to I-35 rather than merely ending at I-40 even more of that long distance traffic will leave US-69 behind. The Creek Turnpike around the South side of Tulsa is mostly rural and has high speed limits (65mph-75mph). The Eastern OKC turnpike might offer long distance drivers the same thing.

There are obvious downsides to the I-35/I-44 combo to get from Dallas to Big Cabin and points farther North & Northeast. You're going to pay more in tolls. The driving distance is a little farther. The upshot is no stop signs or stop lights as well as no speed traps. Driving speeds are faster and more consistent.

^^^ you got me excited about I-44 rebuild with your update to the project thread, I will need to have a look myself next time I'm up there and I'll use it as an excuse to check out the new Gathering Place Park and the Riverside Dr. tunnels which I hear are very nice!

^^^^^
Makes you wonder about the old "full" Chickasaw Turnpike concept from the late '50's (as seen on numerous Gousha state and regional maps of the era) extending from Davis to Ada and up to the Turner Tpk. at Stroud.  If that had become reality, it's unlikely anyone would be seriously talking about improving the US 69 corridor these days.   

Quote from: sparker on August 30, 2018, 02:15:44 AM
^^^^^
Makes you wonder about the old "full" Chickasaw Turnpike concept from the late '50's (as seen on numerous Gousha state and regional maps of the era) extending from Davis to Ada and up to the Turner Tpk. at Stroud.  If that had become reality, it's unlikely anyone would be seriously talking about improving the US 69 corridor these days.   

Interesting–got any links to those? The earliest versions of the Chickasaw I know about were a diagonal from Ada that ran out at I-40 around Henryetta.

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 30, 2018, 03:38:58 AM

Quote from: sparker on August 30, 2018, 02:15:44 AM
^^^^^
Makes you wonder about the old "full" Chickasaw Turnpike concept from the late '50's (as seen on numerous Gousha state and regional maps of the era) extending from Davis to Ada and up to the Turner Tpk. at Stroud.  If that had become reality, it's unlikely anyone would be seriously talking about improving the US 69 corridor these days.   

Interesting–got any links to those? The earliest versions of the Chickasaw I know about were a diagonal from Ada that ran out at I-40 around Henryetta.

Unforunately, no; remember these from paper maps I had as a kid.  This system (ca. 1957-58) seemed more like an expansion of the OK turnpike systems rather than a first Interstate iteration.  IIRC, a trunk line paralleling US 77 extended from the TX line essentially where I-35 is today and extending north to a split near Davis.  The east branch was the "Chickasaw" pike, extending NE to around Ada then north along OK 99 to the Turner near Stroud.  The west branch turned northwest at Davis to about Elmore City, then north again past Purcell and Norman, skirting OKC on the east side before heading north to intersect the south end of the Kansas Turnpike (essentially mimicking I-35).  These alignments were likely cancelled once the Interstate corridors were established in late '57 and early '58.

Again, the primary source for this info was Gousha maps of the era, particularly regional maps; the '56-'59 editions would be the most likely.  I remember these because US 56 was commissioned farther north about that same time, also shown on these regional maps.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 28, 2018, 04:54:51 PM
I'm not sure I understand the need for the "B Street Connector" bridge on the South side of Calera. This looks like a pretty expensive bridge. It has zero direct access to the US-69 freeway. It has indirect access to the frontage roads. The money that would be spent on that thing could have been redirected to a better, braided on/off ramp design.

That bridge provides a way across the UP tracks. Without it, the trains can completely block access from the east.  The locals asked for it.

Quote from: sparker on August 30, 2018, 11:32:11 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 30, 2018, 03:38:58 AM

Quote from: sparker on August 30, 2018, 02:15:44 AM
^^^^^
Makes you wonder about the old "full" Chickasaw Turnpike concept from the late '50's (as seen on numerous Gousha state and regional maps of the era) extending from Davis to Ada and up to the Turner Tpk. at Stroud.  If that had become reality, it's unlikely anyone would be seriously talking about improving the US 69 corridor these days.   

Interesting–got any links to those? The earliest versions of the Chickasaw I know about were a diagonal from Ada that ran out at I-40 around Henryetta.

Unforunately, no; remember these from paper maps I had as a kid.  This system (ca. 1957-58) seemed more like an expansion of the OK turnpike systems rather than a first Interstate iteration.  IIRC, a trunk line paralleling US 77 extended from the TX line essentially where I-35 is today and extending north to a split near Davis.  The east branch was the "Chickasaw" pike, extending NE to around Ada then north along OK 99 to the Turner near Stroud.  The west branch turned northwest at Davis to about Elmore City, then north again past Purcell and Norman, skirting OKC on the east side before heading north to intersect the south end of the Kansas Turnpike (essentially mimicking I-35).  These alignments were likely cancelled once the Interstate corridors were established in late '57 and early '58.

You are correct about them being cancelled when the Interstate corridors were established. 

Quote from: sparker on August 30, 2018, 11:32:11 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 30, 2018, 03:38:58 AM

Quote from: sparker on August 30, 2018, 02:15:44 AM
^^^^^
Makes you wonder about the old "full" Chickasaw Turnpike concept from the late '50's (as seen on numerous Gousha state and regional maps of the era) extending from Davis to Ada and up to the Turner Tpk. at Stroud.  If that had become reality, it's unlikely anyone would be seriously talking about improving the US 69 corridor these days.   

Interesting–got any links to those? The earliest versions of the Chickasaw I know about were a diagonal from Ada that ran out at I-40 around Henryetta.

Unforunately, no; remember these from paper maps I had as a kid.  This system (ca. 1957-58) seemed more like an expansion of the OK turnpike systems rather than a first Interstate iteration.  IIRC, a trunk line paralleling US 77 extended from the TX line essentially where I-35 is today and extending north to a split near Davis.  The east branch was the "Chickasaw" pike, extending NE to around Ada then north along OK 99 to the Turner near Stroud.  The west branch turned northwest at Davis to about Elmore City, then north again past Purcell and Norman, skirting OKC on the east side before heading north to intersect the south end of the Kansas Turnpike (essentially mimicking I-35).  These alignments were likely cancelled once the Interstate corridors were established in late '57 and early '58.

Again, the primary source for this info was Gousha maps of the era, particularly regional maps; the '56-'59 editions would be the most likely.  I remember these because US 56 was commissioned farther north about that same time, also shown on these regional maps.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 29, 2018, 04:06:55 PM
There are obvious downsides to the I-35/I-44 combo to get from Dallas to Big Cabin and points farther North & Northeast. You're going to pay more in tolls. The driving distance is a little farther. The upshot is no stop signs or stop lights as well as no speed traps. Driving speeds are faster and more consistent.

I much prefer the I-44-I-35-I-35E route through Oklahoma City over the US 75-Indian Nation Turnpike-US 69-US 75 route. It is far, far less stressful than driving through McAlester and Durant. It is a little further and takes a few more minutes but you arrive home not feeling like you had just driven through Baghdad. The tolls are a bargain to be able to sit back, relax, put the cruise control on and listen to some music instead of having to slow down and speed up and slow down and hit traffic lights then speed up again ad nauseam. There are probably 15 speed limit changes from McAlester to the Red River and you have to worry about the local law enforcement embezzling funds from your meager wallet. US 75 (Future I-45) in Texas is a freeway but isn't very enjoyable to drive, especially when you start getting close to Dallas. You have to drive through Oklahoma City which can either be a breeze or it can be slow, depending on what time of day it is but the rest of the drive is easy and relaxing unless you hit a freak traffic jam or construction zone (which are very popular in Oklahoma). When the turnpike is built and extended to I-35 it will make the western route look even more attractive. If I'm in a hurry I'll take the McAlester-Sherman route but if I have time I take the OKC route.

Quote from: bugo on November 22, 2018, 09:28:38 PM
US 75 (Future I-45) in Texas is a freeway but isn't very enjoyable to drive, especially when you start getting close to Dallas.

Haven't heard word one from any official source about upgrading/designating TX's portion of us 75 to I-45 -- particularly as a unilateral in-state move, since OK seems not to be in much of a hurry to follow suit!  Do you know something we don't?

Quote from: sparker on November 23, 2018, 02:02:59 AM

Quote from: bugo on November 22, 2018, 09:28:38 PM
US 75 (Future I-45) in Texas is a freeway but isn't very enjoyable to drive, especially when you start getting close to Dallas.

No, just a guess.
Haven't heard word one from any official source about upgrading/designating TX's portion of us 75 to I-45 -- particularly as a unilateral in-state move, since OK seems not to be in much of a hurry to follow suit!  Do you know something we don't?

Quote from: bugo on November 23, 2018, 09:24:19 AM

Quote from: sparker on November 23, 2018, 02:02:59 AM

Quote from: bugo on November 22, 2018, 09:28:38 PM
US 75 (Future I-45) in Texas is a freeway but isn't very enjoyable to drive, especially when you start getting close to Dallas.

No, just a guess.
Haven't heard word one from any official source about upgrading/designating TX's portion of us 75 to I-45 -- particularly as a unilateral in-state move, since OK seems not to be in much of a hurry to follow suit!  Do you know something we don't?

Actually, such a unilateral move by TXDOT would have some effects that might be at least amusing -- it would sure throw a monkey wrench into the I-345 teardown crowd -- "guess what -- we're not only gonna keep this corridor going BUT we're going to drag I-45 up it all the way to the Red River!"  And conceivably US 75 could be rerouted over US 69 all the way south to Port Arthur (hitting the other end of US 175 in the process), solving the "69, meet 69" situation.  Fun stuff!

And once signed to the state line, TXDOT could call up ODOT and mimic the late Ted Knight's entreaty to Michael O'Keefe at the end of Caddyshack (while the latter's lining up his $100K putt):  "Wellllllll?..........we're WAITING!"

Quote from: sparker on November 23, 2018, 06:30:20 PM

Quote from: bugo on November 23, 2018, 09:24:19 AM

Quote from: sparker on November 23, 2018, 02:02:59 AM

Quote from: bugo on November 22, 2018, 09:28:38 PM
US 75 (Future I-45) in Texas is a freeway but isn't very enjoyable to drive, especially when you start getting close to Dallas.

No, just a guess.
Haven't heard word one from any official source about upgrading/designating TX's portion of us 75 to I-45 -- particularly as a unilateral in-state move, since OK seems not to be in much of a hurry to follow suit!  Do you know something we don't?

Actually, such a unilateral move by TXDOT would have some effects that might be at least amusing -- it would sure throw a monkey wrench into the I-345 teardown crowd -- "guess what -- we're not only gonna keep this corridor going BUT we're going to drag I-45 up it all the way to the Red River!"  And conceivably US 75 could be rerouted over US 69 all the way south to Port Arthur (hitting the other end of US 175 in the process), solving the "69, meet 69" situation.  Fun stuff!

And once signed to the state line, TXDOT could call up ODOT and mimic the late Ted Knight's entreaty to Michael O'Keefe at the end of Caddyshack (while the latter's lining up his $100K putt):  "Wellllllll?..........we're WAITING!"

and when hell freezes over, ODOT will have the money to do what is being requested.

Quote from: rte66man on November 24, 2018, 01:05:03 PM

Quote from: sparker on November 23, 2018, 06:30:20 PM

Quote from: bugo on November 23, 2018, 09:24:19 AM

Quote from: sparker on November 23, 2018, 02:02:59 AM

Quote from: bugo on November 22, 2018, 09:28:38 PM
US 75 (Future I-45) in Texas is a freeway but isn't very enjoyable to drive, especially when you start getting close to Dallas.

No, just a guess.
Haven't heard word one from any official source about upgrading/designating TX's portion of us 75 to I-45 -- particularly as a unilateral in-state move, since OK seems not to be in much of a hurry to follow suit!  Do you know something we don't?

Actually, such a unilateral move by TXDOT would have some effects that might be at least amusing -- it would sure throw a monkey wrench into the I-345 teardown crowd -- "guess what -- we're not only gonna keep this corridor going BUT we're going to drag I-45 up it all the way to the Red River!"  And conceivably US 75 could be rerouted over US 69 all the way south to Port Arthur (hitting the other end of US 175 in the process), solving the "69, meet 69" situation.  Fun stuff!

And once signed to the state line, TXDOT could call up ODOT and mimic the late Ted Knight's entreaty to Michael O'Keefe at the end of Caddyshack (while the latter's lining up his $100K putt):  "Wellllllll?..........we're WAITING!"

and when hell freezes over, ODOT will have the money to do what is being requested.

OK has had their portion of the US 69/(75) corridor pre-approved as an Interstate (at least as far north as I-40; see "section 1174" of ISTEA) for 27 years and have yet to make a move in that direction.  It's not just the funds -- or lack thereof -- it's the will to actually engage in large-scale and highly visible expenditures of public funds; that concept appears to be anathema to the string of OK state administrations over the last few decades (unless it's a toll project like the 40/44 connector east of OKC).  Add to that the local resistance to bypasses along the US 69 corridor and you've got an ongoing recipe for inaction.  ODOT seems content to do "spot" projects like the Durant and Calera upgrades every once in a while, but nothing on a larger scale (or stage!).   

Quote from: sparker on November 24, 2018, 03:57:52 PM


OK has had their portion of the US 69/(75) corridor pre-approved as an Interstate (at least as far north as I-40; see "section 1174" of ISTEA) for 27 years and have yet to make a move in that direction.  It's not just the funds -- or lack thereof -- it's the will to actually engage in large-scale and highly visible expenditures of public funds; that concept appears to be anathema to the string of OK state administrations over the last few decades (unless it's a toll project like the 40/44 connector east of OKC).  Add to that the local resistance to bypasses along the US 69 corridor and you've got an ongoing recipe for inaction.  ODOT seems content to do "spot" projects like the Durant and Calera upgrades every once in a while, but nothing on a larger scale (or stage!).   

There's been some work around McAlester the last year or two. Most of the restaurants and gas stations are on one-way frontage roads accessed by slip ramps. Still, not a full upgrade though.

Quote from: US71 on November 24, 2018, 06:08:22 PM

Quote from: sparker on November 24, 2018, 03:57:52 PM


OK has had their portion of the US 69/(75) corridor pre-approved as an Interstate (at least as far north as I-40; see "section 1174" of ISTEA) for 27 years and have yet to make a move in that direction.  It's not just the funds -- or lack thereof -- it's the will to actually engage in large-scale and highly visible expenditures of public funds; that concept appears to be anathema to the string of OK state administrations over the last few decades (unless it's a toll project like the 40/44 connector east of OKC).  Add to that the local resistance to bypasses along the US 69 corridor and you've got an ongoing recipe for inaction.  ODOT seems content to do "spot" projects like the Durant and Calera upgrades every once in a while, but nothing on a larger scale (or stage!).   

There's been some work around McAlester the last year or two. Most of the restaurants and gas stations are on one-way frontage roads accessed by slip ramps. Still, not a full upgrade though.

Like I said earlier, "spot fixes" for local squeaky wheels.  The US 70 E-W Durant bypass fits into that category, along with the Idabel expressway bypass well to the east (that one's about 20 years old now!).  It'll be interesting to see if the planned Muskogee US 69 bypass, big by comparison, ever hits the letting stage!

Quote from: sparker on November 24, 2018, 06:17:15 PM

Quote from: US71 on November 24, 2018, 06:08:22 PM

Quote from: sparker on November 24, 2018, 03:57:52 PM


OK has had their portion of the US 69/(75) corridor pre-approved as an Interstate (at least as far north as I-40; see "section 1174" of ISTEA) for 27 years and have yet to make a move in that direction.  It's not just the funds -- or lack thereof -- it's the will to actually engage in large-scale and highly visible expenditures of public funds; that concept appears to be anathema to the string of OK state administrations over the last few decades (unless it's a toll project like the 40/44 connector east of OKC).  Add to that the local resistance to bypasses along the US 69 corridor and you've got an ongoing recipe for inaction.  ODOT seems content to do "spot" projects like the Durant and Calera upgrades every once in a while, but nothing on a larger scale (or stage!).   

There's been some work around McAlester the last year or two. Most of the restaurants and gas stations are on one-way frontage roads accessed by slip ramps. Still, not a full upgrade though.

Like I said earlier, "spot fixes" for local squeaky wheels.  The US 70 E-W Durant bypass fits into that category, along with the Idabel expressway bypass well to the east (that one's about 20 years old now!).  It'll be interesting to see if the planned Muskogee US 69 bypass, big by comparison, ever hits the letting stage!

OKDOT had the project under the major projects page and then it suddenly disappeared a year ago after only being on there for about 3 months or so.

At least they have plans to upgrade US-69 in McAlester. They've laid the ground work for it with the frontage roads. There's plans for a Muskogee bypass as well. In the end it's all about money. The only thing that could get these projects moving quickly at all is if the federal government launches a major infrastructure program and actually spends some of the money in Oklahoma. Until then the upgrades are going to happen very slowly, one small piece at a time.

The anti freeway crowds in places like Stringtown won't be able to hold out forever. Outside of OKC and Tulsa very few other cities and towns in Oklahoma are gaining population. Lawton has lost 5000 people over the past few years (the city limits population peaked at 98000 in 2012 and is now down to 93000). The smaller more rural towns are shedding people at a faster pace. Very few young people are staying. If the current political orthodoxy continues young people will continue fleeing to cities (often out of state) to raise their families -if they can afford to start families. Our teachers are going to keep leaving for better pay in other states. Long term our state's ideology will render a bunch of places, such as Stringtown into ghost towns. And then there won't be any problem converting US-69 into an Interstate. It will just be a matter of removing a bunch of intersections and driveways to nowhere.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 24, 2018, 06:55:59 PM
The anti freeway crowds in places like Stringtown won't be able to hold out forever. Outside of OKC and Tulsa very few other cities and towns in Oklahoma are gaining population. Lawton has lost 5000 people over the past few years (the city limits population peaked at 98000 in 2012 and is now down to 93000). The smaller more rural towns are shedding people at a faster pace. Very few young people are staying. If the current political orthodoxy continues young people will continue fleeing to cities (often out of state) to raise their families -if they can afford to start families. Our teachers are going to keep leaving for better pay in other states. Long term our state's ideology will render a bunch of places, such as Stringtown into ghost towns. And then there won't be any problem converting US-69 into an Interstate. It will just be a matter of removing a bunch of intersections and driveways to nowhere.

In Stringtown's case it may be more of a reaction to the potential loss of ticket revenue than anything else. Notorious speed trap.

Durant is one of the few places in the state that is holding its own if not growing. They've got the casino, and if you squint hard enough it's commutable to Dallas.

Quote from: Road HogIn Stringtown's case it may be more of a reaction to the potential loss of ticket revenue than anything else. Notorious speed trap.

If that's the case then it's all the more reason to convert US-69 into a freeway through there. A police department or small community should not be relying on speeding ticket revenue to pay significant amounts of their budgets. The local tax base (along with state and federal sources) should be paying those bills.

Ultimately the policy of setting up speed traps is bad for local business. Perhaps others could feel different, but if I get pulled over in some small town's speed trap I'm not going to make any additional stops there to buy anything. Further, I'm not going to buy anything there on any future trips through there. And I might just pick a different route (like the combo of I-35 & I-44) to avoid that region entirely.

Upgrading US-69 into a freeway (possibly I-45) would be a good thing for towns like Atoka and Stringtown. It would bring more commerce and more development through that area and do more to help those local tax bases.

Quote from: Road HogDurant is one of the few places in the state that is holding its own if not growing. They've got the casino, and if you squint hard enough it's commutable to Dallas.

Choctaw Casino is fairly nice and probably attracts a decent number of people from Texas. But there's no reason for gamblers from Texas to drive any farther North. WinStar Casino on I-35 in Thackerville is a much bigger attraction.

Does Oklahoma not have a law limiting the percentage of income a town can get from traffic tickets? Sounds like that would be a good idea for some of these towns. I know Utah recently passed a law requiring traffic tickets to be no more than 25% of a town's total revenue.

Quote from: US 89 on November 26, 2018, 04:39:56 PM
Does Oklahoma not have a law limiting the percentage of income a town can get from traffic tickets? Sounds like that would be a good idea for some of these towns. I know Utah recently passed a law requiring traffic tickets to be no more than 25% of a town's total revenue.

It really ought to be more like 10 or 15 percent max. There should also be laws requiring speed limits to be set at the 85th percentile. If people are driving too fast, than modify the road itself, not the speed limit sign.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 26, 2018, 04:50:06 PM
There should also be laws requiring speed limits to be set at the 85th percentile.

"I'll drive more slowly so that the speed limit will go down." And the inverse.

Quote from: 1 on November 26, 2018, 06:54:41 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 26, 2018, 04:50:06 PM
There should also be laws requiring speed limits to be set at the 85th percentile.

"I'll drive more slowly so that the speed limit will go down." And the inverse.

There should speed limit minimums(which I think there usually are). If you want to drive the minimum but do it in right lane.

Quote from: 1 on November 26, 2018, 06:54:41 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 26, 2018, 04:50:06 PM
There should also be laws requiring speed limits to be set at the 85th percentile.

"I'll drive more slowly so that the speed limit will go down." And the inverse.

Ahh, my favorite ouroboros.  :pan:

Quote from: Plutonic PandaThere should speed limit minimums(which I think there usually are). If you want to drive the minimum but do it in right lane.

Oklahoma does have a law for that on the books, passed just in the last year or so, IIRC. The law applies to divided highways, especially the Interstates and turnpikes. You can't camp out in the left lane driving at or below the speed limit blocking others from being able to pass in the left lane. It is a ticket-able offense all on its own without any other factors, such as expired tags or anything else.

Technically it's against the law to not drive with the flow of traffic, such as driving 25mph in a 45mph zone like I see all the freaking time here in Lawton along arterials such as Cache Road. Lawton has some of the most constipated slow drivers I've ever seen. They'll whip out in front of you without much warning and then go slooowwwwwwwww. Combine that with the dummies who can't leave their phones alone at a traffic signal, "oh don't worry about that green light; just keep up the road block until you finish your tweet."

I consider slow and inattentive drivers every bit as much a hazard (if not more so) as speeders. I have to get all Zen-like to keep from getting angry over it.

Oklahoma drivers are terrible in general The drivers here are the worst I've ever seen. They are slow and rude. They will cut across 3 lanes of traffic to get to an exit ramp. They park in the left lane at 10 under. They will pull right out in front of you on a two lane road and go 20 under, even if there is nothing behind you for a mile. They suck.

Quote from: bugo on November 27, 2018, 07:39:04 AM
Oklahoma drivers are terrible in general The drivers here are the worst I've ever seen. They are slow and rude. They will cut across 3 lanes of traffic to get to an exit ramp. They park in the left lane at 10 under. They will pull right out in front of you on a two lane road and go 20 under, even if there is nothing behind you for a mile. They suck.

Sounds like I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis

I make jokes from time to time with local friends about a fictional organization called the "Obstructionist League of Drivers" or the "O.L.D." They have their early morning roll call at Leo and Ken's truck stop. They get their daily routes of which avenues to clog and exchange tips. "When making a left turn don't use your turn signal, or just use your right blinker and keep it blinking for the next 5 miles. Another useful tip: always drive with your brights on full blast. When other people flash their lights it just means they're saying hello."

In cites, Oklahoma drivers are incredibly rude. I don't understand how they can drive that slow. In the country, the seem to drive correctly. On Interstates, they drive better than in other states, probably because OK installed the signs reminding them to not block the left lane

It had to be 20 or 30 years since I first saw it, but Louie Anderson had a great stand-up comedy bit about slow drivers. IIRC, he was joking about his dad or grandfather driving really slow on purpose, referring to him as "the keeper of the speed." There's definitely a bunch of those here in this town.

^^^^^^^^
Around these parts, they're referred to as "road boulders". 

Quote from: sparker on November 29, 2018, 04:54:21 PM
^^^^^^^^
Around these parts, they're referred to as "road boulders".

A friend of mine went to Scandanavia on vacation and rented a Volvo to travel.

But he forgot about his lanes and drove the speed limit in the passing lane for about 20-25km.

People however are much more courteous there, no honking, no passing on the shoulder. After he finally saw the car behind him flash his lights, he pulled into the left lane. It is illegal to overtake in the left lane so everyone backed up behind him.

As everyone passed him they gave him a toot of the horn and waived their hands to him to say thanks.

The backup was 3km long!!

No drama. No videos to upload. Just a large quantity of patience.

Quote from: edwaleni on December 04, 2018, 01:01:16 PM
As everyone passed him they gave him a toot of the horn and waived their hands to him to say thanks.

The backup was 3km long!!

No drama. No videos to upload. Just a large quantity of patience.

That explains Minnesota a lot.

Quote from: bugo on November 27, 2018, 07:39:04 AM
Oklahoma drivers are terrible in general The drivers here are the worst I've ever seen. They are slow and rude. They will cut across 3 lanes of traffic to get to an exit ramp. They park in the left lane at 10 under. They will pull right out in front of you on a two lane road and go 20 under, even if there is nothing behind you for a mile. They suck.

"They park in the left lane at 10 under"
I concur! 9 times out of 10 when I see a slow driver on I-40 (esp. westbound, Little Rock westward), it has Oklahoma plates. Left lane? You bet!! And to add to the subject of slow traffic in the left lane in Arkansas, the Arkansas State Police only do a half hearted attempt to enforce the law "slow traffic keep right".
Getting back to the subject or I-45, It would make sense to at least extend it to the TX/OK boarder and then sign it as "future I-45" in OK via US 75 and US 69 until reaching I-40.

Quote from: capt.ron on December 29, 2018, 11:20:40 AM

Quote from: bugo on November 27, 2018, 07:39:04 AM
Oklahoma drivers are terrible in general The drivers here are the worst I've ever seen. They are slow and rude. They will cut across 3 lanes of traffic to get to an exit ramp. They park in the left lane at 10 under. They will pull right out in front of you on a two lane road and go 20 under, even if there is nothing behind you for a mile. They suck.

"They park in the left lane at 10 under"
I concur! 9 times out of 10 when I see a slow driver on I-40 (esp. westbound, Little Rock westward), it has Oklahoma plates. Left lane? You bet!! And to add to the subject of slow traffic in the left lane in Arkansas, the Arkansas State Police only do a half hearted attempt to enforce the law "slow traffic keep right".
Getting back to the subject or I-45, It would make sense to at least extend it to the TX/OK boarder and then sign it as "future I-45" in OK via US 75 and US 69 until reaching I-40.

I think once the Sherman upgrade is complete, you'll see a push to do exactly that, at least up to the US 69 junction just south of the bridge.

Whether it gets signed as I-45 or not I fully expect US-69 to be brought up to Interstate quality through Durant. The road surface of US-69 and its shoulders would need some improvements. And some of that is already taking place.

A freeway upgrade to US-69 is planned for the town of Calera, possibly in response to growth related to the Choctaw Casino resort nearby. Unfortunately the plan I saw for the upgrade didn't include a new exit to remove the traffic light at Hollis Roberts Road at the main entrance to the casino. But there is plenty of room to remove that at-grade intersection and build slip ramps to frontage roads. That intersection really needs to be a freeway exit due the traffic load. There's an incredible amount of truck traffic on that route. And there's a lot of traffic visiting that casino. It's not quite as busy as WinStar on I-35 (the largest casino in the US), but it's a big casino nonetheless.

The other at-grade intersections between Colbert and Calera can be removed relatively easily since a bunch of properties along US-69 are behind partial frontage roads.

North of Durant "future I-45" could easily be built as far as Tushka. But North of there is where we wind up with all the anti-freeway trouble in Atoka and Stringtown. They're like the "Breezewoods" in Pennsylvania. But nobody really wants to move to those towns and they're not doing well at keeping young people around. At some point those towns will shrivel up enough that they become a non-issue at blocking a freeway upgrade. The US-69 freeway upgrade in McAlester and freeway bypass in Muskogee will probably get built meanwhile.

^^^^^^^^
If ODOT really wanted to pursue an Interstate corridor up to at least I-40, they've had the federal "green light" to do so for 27 years (ISTEA section 1174).  They could cut some sort of compensation deal with the towns along US 69(/75) and actually get it done if they (a) had the funds to complete the corridor and (b) could amass the political will to spend those funds on this specific project.  There might be some local sniveling, but eventually feathers will be smoothed and the project would proceed.  It's not like VA, with its "commonwealth" approach which functionally means local veto power for such things -- these towns are like the "Black Knight" in Holy Grail, with undoubtedly some avenue of communication with their state legislators to run interference for them -- but with little power of their own.  The bottom line is that ODOT and their political handlers just don't want to spend $$ on upgrading that corridor; Stringtown et. al are simply convenient excuses to avoid addressing the issue of too much traffic (particularly commercial) for the configuration of the present facility. 

For whatever reason the people in Atoka and Stringtown are just as much a Monty Python "Black Knight" character as any NIMBY town in the country. But I would agree the state legislature could push a very win-able eminent domain case and get new bypasses built around Tushka & Atoka as well as upgrade US-69 thru Stringtown (there's hardly any town there really). The OK state legislature simply doesn't want to spend highway money on projects there. They would prefer to sink that money into Tulsa first, OKC second and then throw table scraps at other locations in the state.

If the federal government was more involved in planning, maintaining and funding national highway networks like the Interstate system we would probably already see US-69 vastly more upgraded to Interstate standards in Oklahoma than it is now. It is a very important route to the overall national highway network. But it does bypass OKC and Tulsa on its way from Texas to the Northeastern US.

Regardless of what happens it won't be too long before I-45 could be signed up into Oklahoma, at an unceremonious end at the US-70 bypass around Durant. It would be a lot like how I-44 ends in Wichita Falls, only a dozen miles past the state line.

Bobby, that's interesting you mention Tulsa. I was always under the impression that OkDOT favors OKC over Tulsa for Highway money but OTA favors Tulsa.

I don't understand why, but the Tulsa area just seems to have more political clout than any other part of the state. OKC isn't far behind though.

I see the opposite. OKC gets most of the good stuff when Tulsa gets leftovers.

Quote from: bugo on December 30, 2018, 01:48:17 PM
I see the opposite. OKC gets most of the good stuff when Tulsa gets leftovers.

Tulsa has George Kaiser which a god send for the city. OKC has Aubrey but he died. Unfortunately that means OKC no longer has a big philanthropist like Tulsa does.

As far as government goes, I agree the government favors OKC even though they seem to fight the city on a lot of progress they try and make like fixing abandoned property laws and laws protecting the gays from bigoted landlords. The state has or tried to overturn progressive laws moving the city forward. As far as capital projects go, I'd agree the state favors OKC.

I find Tulsa is a much nicer city than OKC. A large part of OKC is a slum.

Quote from: bugo on December 30, 2018, 03:37:46 PM
I find Tulsa is a much nicer city than OKC. A large part of OKC is a slum.

"...a large part of OKC is a slum..." What?  Having lived for decades in each city I can say with certainty that OKC is no more and no less a slum than is Tulsa. Cite some specific examples and show how they constitute "a large part".

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 29, 2018, 01:45:06 PM
A freeway upgrade to US-69 is planned for the town of Calera, possibly in response to growth related to the Choctaw Casino resort nearby. Unfortunately the plan I saw for the upgrade didn't include a new exit to remove the traffic light at Hollis Roberts Road at the main entrance to the casino. But there is plenty of room to remove that at-grade intersection and build slip ramps to frontage roads. That intersection really needs to be a freeway exit due the traffic load. There's an incredible amount of truck traffic on that route. And there's a lot of traffic visiting that casino. It's not quite as busy as WinStar on I-35 (the largest casino in the US), but it's a big casino nonetheless.

The other at-grade intersections between Colbert and Calera can be removed relatively easily since a bunch of properties along US-69 are behind partial frontage roads.

ROW acquisition and Utility relocation is scheduled on the 8 Year Plan for the stretch south from Calera to near the Red River

Quote from: bugo on December 30, 2018, 03:37:46 PM
I find Tulsa is a much nicer city than OKC. A large part of OKC is a slum.

Tulsa has more scenic beauty. Tulsa is a nice city but I don't like it. I prefer OKC and think OKC is a nicer city with more to offer. OKC also has a much brighter future than Tulsa. I think Tulsa has a lot of potential that is squandered due to a dysfunctional government.

Especially with the past decade of minimal road projects, if any local area refuses road upgrades, ODOT will usually oblige and focus on other areas that want upgrades. (There are plenty of areas that want them.)

Quote from: rte66man on December 30, 2018, 07:51:20 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 29, 2018, 01:45:06 PM
A freeway upgrade to US-69 is planned for the town of Calera, possibly in response to growth related to the Choctaw Casino resort nearby. Unfortunately the plan I saw for the upgrade didn't include a new exit to remove the traffic light at Hollis Roberts Road at the main entrance to the casino. But there is plenty of room to remove that at-grade intersection and build slip ramps to frontage roads. That intersection really needs to be a freeway exit due the traffic load. There's an incredible amount of truck traffic on that route. And there's a lot of traffic visiting that casino. It's not quite as busy as WinStar on I-35 (the largest casino in the US), but it's a big casino nonetheless.

The other at-grade intersections between Colbert and Calera can be removed relatively easily since a bunch of properties along US-69 are behind partial frontage roads.

ROW acquisition and Utility relocation is scheduled on the 8 Year Plan for the stretch south from Calera to near the Red River

I wonder if that will take all 8 years, or just part of that time.  Either way, can't happen soon enough.

Quote from: txstateends on December 31, 2018, 08:03:01 PM

Quote from: rte66man on December 30, 2018, 07:51:20 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 29, 2018, 01:45:06 PM
A freeway upgrade to US-69 is planned for the town of Calera, possibly in response to growth related to the Choctaw Casino resort nearby. Unfortunately the plan I saw for the upgrade didn't include a new exit to remove the traffic light at Hollis Roberts Road at the main entrance to the casino. But there is plenty of room to remove that at-grade intersection and build slip ramps to frontage roads. That intersection really needs to be a freeway exit due the traffic load. There's an incredible amount of truck traffic on that route. And there's a lot of traffic visiting that casino. It's not quite as busy as WinStar on I-35 (the largest casino in the US), but it's a big casino nonetheless.

The other at-grade intersections between Colbert and Calera can be removed relatively easily since a bunch of properties along US-69 are behind partial frontage roads.

ROW acquisition and Utility relocation is scheduled on the 8 Year Plan for the stretch south from Calera to near the Red River

I wonder if that will take all 8 years, or just part of that time.  Either way, can't happen soon enough.

It is scheduled for FFY 2026.  If miracles happen and extra funds become available, it could be moved up.

Quote from: rte66man on December 30, 2018, 07:49:06 PM

Quote from: bugo on December 30, 2018, 03:37:46 PM
I find Tulsa is a much nicer city than OKC. A large part of OKC is a slum.

"...a large part of OKC is a slum..." What?  Having lived for decades in each city I can say with certainty that OKC is no more and no less a slum than is Tulsa. Cite some specific examples and show how they constitute "a large part".

That's at least how it appeared to me. I stopped to get gas off I-240 and every gas station that I saw had bars on the windows. You only see bars on windows in Tulsa in the very worst parts of town if you ever see them.

I-240 runs through one of the, uh "lesser booming" areas of metro Oklahoma City. Drive a little way South into Moore and things get much nicer. Same goes for Norman. I like downtown Oklahoma City and a number of neighborhoods North of downtown. There's a lot of development taking place there. A bunch of the growth taking place in OKC is happening on the North and West ends of the metro. And that's along with the growth in Norman and Moore.

Really, the OKC metro area is the only place in the state that is adding population at a significant rate. Many other parts of the state are losing population. Here in Lawton our city limits population had its recent peak around 2012 with 98,000 people. The last estimate had it down to 93,000. The small towns and rural areas are losing young adults to the big cities like crazy. Some move to places like OKC (and Tulsa). Plenty of others are moving off to Texas. That seems to be where many of our city's losses are going.

Of course there are nice parts of OKC. The bad areas are just more prominent. North Tulsa is kind of rough, east Tulsa is fairly rough and there's the little mini hood at 61st and Peoria. I don't feel unsafe anywhere in Tulsa. I drive through the 61st and Peoria intersection all the the time at all hours of the day and night and I haven't had any problems. On the other hand, I lived in Kansas City for 2 years and the bad parts of KC are way, way worse than north Tulsa.

Tulsa happens to be the only city where my company has had field technicians get (a) car-jacked and (b) shot.  To be fair, at least the shooting was in a nice neighborhood.  He was caught in the cross-fire of an armed home invasion.

Just a little food for thought how "safe" Tulsa is compared to Oklahoma City.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/tables/table-6 (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/tables/table-6)

Oklahoma City - MSA Pop: 1,385,915 - City: 648,260
Violent Crime Total
MSA: 6907 - City: 5104 - Rate Per 100,000 Residents: 498.4
Murder & Non-Negligent Manslaughter
MSA: 105 - City: 81 - Rate Per 100,000 Residents: 7.6
Rape
MSA: 806 - City: 474 - Rate Per 100,000 Residents: 58.2
Robbery
MSA: 1439 - City: 1120 - Rate Per 100,000 Residents: 103.8
Aggravated Assault
MSA: 4557 - City: 3429 - Rate Per 100,000 Residents: 328.8
Property Crime
MSA: 40163 - City: 24326 - Rate Per 100,000 Residents: 2897.9
Burglary
MSA: 9656 - City: 6105 - Rate Per 100,000 Residents: 696.7
Larceny-Theft
MSA: 26316 - City: 15421 - Rate Per 100,000 Residents: 1898.8
Motor Vehicle Theft
MSA: 4191 - City: 2800 - Rate Per 100,000 Residents: 302.4

Tulsa - MSA Pop: 989,910 - City: 404,868
Violent Crime Total
MSA: 5600 - City: 4214 - Rate Per 100,000 Residents: 565.7
Murder & Non-Negligent Manslaughter
MSA: 90 - City: 70 - Rate Per 100,000 Residents: 9.1
Rape
MSA: 655 - City: 423 - Rate Per 100,000 Residents: 66.2
Robbery
MSA: 1098 - City: 964 - Rate Per 100,000 Residents: 110.9
Aggravated Assault
MSA: 3757 - City: 2757 - Rate Per 100,000 Residents: 379.5
Property Crime
MSA: 33968 - City: 22088 - Rate Per 100,000 Residents: 3431.4
Burglary
MSA: 8320 - City: 5574 - Rate Per 100,000 Residents: 840.5
Larceny-Theft
MSA: 20791 - City: 13054 - Rate Per 100,000 Residents: 2100.3
Motor Vehicle Theft
MSA: 4857 - City: 3460 - Rate Per 100,000 Residents: 490.7

At least for 2017 Tulsa rated worse than Oklahoma City in every crime category listed in the FBI UCR.

Quote from: kphoger on January 02, 2019, 12:47:29 PM
Tulsa happens to be the only city where my company has had field technicians get (a) car-jacked and (b) shot.  To be fair, at least the shooting was in a nice neighborhood.  He was caught in the cross-fire of an armed home invasion.

Crime is possible in nice neighborhoods.

Quote from: In_Correct on January 03, 2019, 07:06:42 AM

Quote from: kphoger on January 02, 2019, 12:47:29 PM
Tulsa happens to be the only city where my company has had field technicians get (a) car-jacked and (b) shot.  To be fair, at least the shooting was in a nice neighborhood.  He was caught in the cross-fire of an armed home invasion.

Crime is possible in nice neighborhoods.

Tulsa also had what were probably the worst race riots in American history.

Quote from: In_Correct on January 03, 2019, 07:06:42 AM

Quote from: kphoger on January 02, 2019, 12:47:29 PM
Tulsa happens to be the only city where my company has had field technicians get (a) car-jacked and (b) shot.  To be fair, at least the shooting was in a nice neighborhood.  He was caught in the cross-fire of an armed home invasion.

Crime is possible in nice neighborhoods.

To be more specific...  A couple had just recently moved into a brand-new house in a nice neighborhood in Tulsa.  The house was practically empty, as they hadn't moved much of anything in yet.  Our field tech was there to install cable services.  It was after dark, and the house was all lit up on the inside.  Several robbers busted in through the door with MAC-10s, apparently unaware that there wasn't anything in the house to steal yet.  The homeowner shoved our field tech into the half-bathroom to get him out of the way, but our tech still took a bullet in the arm in the commotion.  (They ended up cancelling the installation and not moving into the house after all.)

Another one of our Tulsa techs later commented that he always felt safer installing cable in the "hood" than in the nicer neighborhoods.  He said, in Tulsa, the cable guy was everyone's hero in the "hood", because everyone around knew there was a good chance they'd be invited over soon to watch a game.

Were the robbers ever apprehended?

I don't understand how so many smaller cities let themselves go.  We love Albuquerque and would probably move there if the crime rate wasn't atrocious.

QuoteI don't understand how so many smaller cities let themselves go.

It all comes down to money. It costs money to keep homes, businesses, streets and other elements of infrastructure well maintained. Hell, it even costs money to demolish and clear a vacant, dilapidated building. On top of that the community has to have some that "pride" thing and a drive for contributing to the greater good. Those two elements are lacking in many parts of the nation. Many smaller communities have a shrinking and aging tax base, so they don't have the money to fix things even if they want to do so.

I think our society is becoming increasingly introverted and self-centered. We have a great deal of division in so many areas (income class, race, religion, politics, etc). That makes the effort to get big things done together very difficult. That's why I believe if things like the Interstate Highway System didn't already exist and we set out to try to build it from scratch today the task would be hopelessly impossible. There may be a lot of displays of flag waving and "patriotism," but I think most of it is all for show. It's not real.

^^^^^^^^^
Many smaller cities -- and even some mid-sized ones -- find themselves strapped for funds, particularly in states that don't provide substantial subsidies to the cities in terms of cash or service arrangements.  But then cities have different priorities -- and often public safety isn't at the head of the list.  My own city, San Jose (pop. just a hair over 1M as of today) deploys only about 950 officers (uniformed and plainclothes) over the whole city, which sprawl about 20 miles corner-to-corner.  It's clear City Hall has different priorities than expanding the PD -- the saving grace is that other entities (VTA transportation, SJSU, and the various nonincorporated areas within the city have other agencies (transit cops, county sheriffs, campus police) that can fill in when needed (considerable administrative overlap between LEA's).  But there is always, in virtually every sizeable city, conflict between enforcement and the ad hoc communities that pre-exist or temporally form when problems arise; simply increasing the number of police officers may not be an effectual way of dealing with those issues that increasingly have become regularized events.  Sometimes it becomes a matter of a PD electing to (a) pursue a policy of strict enforcement of all laws, even in terms of minor infractions, or (b) set a priority list of the worst offenses and concentrate efforts on those -- i.e., the "quality of life" approach versus the "worst of the worst" methodology.  Advocates on both sides, depending upon the official approach to social control.  But currently there's no real answer that is (1) effective and (2) can pass constitutional muster.  So cities that employ one approach tend to get "bad raps" about the other problem.  May be time to go back to the drawing board re enforcement methodologies.

But enough about Tulsa/OKC crime rates and their manifestations.  Since neither city is along the potential I-45 corridor (save a detour over the INT and US 75), it'd be nice to get the thread back on track!  If crime in & around cities needs to be discussed, start a thread in Off-Topic!

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 04, 2019, 05:12:31 PM
Were the robbers ever apprehended?

No clue.

Albuquerque could be a desert oasis.  It's on a major W/E highway, close to the mountains, nice small city with a mountain view, yet its a sh*thole.

I like the vibes of Albuquerque. It has some nice areas but it could be much better.

Since Interstate 45 does not go through Albuquerque, nor is Albuquerque in Oklahoma or Texas, maybe talk about Albuquerque should go into another thread (the one posted "New Mexico", for instance).

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2019, 03:16:44 PM
Since Interstate 45 does not go through Albuquerque, nor is Albuquerque in Oklahoma or Texas, maybe talk about Albuquerque should go into another thread (the one posted "New Mexico", for instance).

Okay Mr. Moderator. The actual moderators are bad enough. We don't need any more.

At some point, this will become I-45. Texas had other plans for the number (From Dallas on TX-114 to US-287 and 287 to Amarillo. The Amarillo route will almost surely take another if it ever gets to that point.  I highly doubt it ever will. My expectation for US-287 is 4 lane divided highway with  grade separation at significant intersections. Probably would be some loops built around the towns, but I digress.....

Texas was / is happy to keep US-75 as US-75. If Oklahoma gets permission to update it to I-45, Texas will follow.

As I have stated elsewhere, even though US-75 is fully controlled access all the way from the end of I-45 (or more technically  I-345). It does not always meet "INTERSTATE STANDARDS". I think at this point that is solely in Grayson County particularly adjacent to downtown Sherman. Texas is a stickler for Interstate Standards. TXDOT is currently upgrading the Grayson County section of US-75 south of US-82. They are also nearly finished with the Collin County upgrades.

Oklahoma doesn't really appear to any interest at all in any new Interstate corridors. Transportation focus is on bypasses around towns that need it and replacing obsolete bridges in rural areas and reconstructing outdated interchanges in urban areas.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 07, 2020, 05:22:05 PM
Oklahoma doesn't really appear to any interest at all in any new Interstate corridors. Transportation focus is on bypasses around towns that need it and replacing obsolete bridges in rural areas and reconstructing outdated interchanges in urban areas.

I would argue that is due to the reality OkDOT faces as a result of a horrendously, underfunded agency. That boils down the the states priorities and I'd like to see how OkDOT would fare if funded better.

I made this point in OKCTalk but I seriously wonder what goes through the minds of ODOT and our legislators when they drive on DFW freeways.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 07, 2020, 05:22:05 PM
Oklahoma doesn't really appear to any interest at all in any new Interstate corridors. Transportation focus is on bypasses around towns that need it and replacing obsolete bridges in rural areas and reconstructing outdated interchanges in urban areas.

As a rule neither is Texas. This is prudent use of highway funds. A fourlane expressway with grade separation at major intersections is more than enough in most rural areas. Controlled access around cities and town is generally enough.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2019, 03:16:44 PM
Since Interstate 45 does not go through Albuquerque, nor is Albuquerque in Oklahoma or Texas, maybe talk about Albuquerque should go into another thread (the one posted "New Mexico", for instance).

Sending Walter White over to straighten you out

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2019, 03:16:44 PM
Since Interstate 45 does not go through Albuquerque, nor is Albuquerque in Oklahoma or Texas, maybe talk about Albuquerque should go into another thread (the one posted "New Mexico", for instance).

Don't forget to take a Left at Albuquerque and a Right at LaJolla  :)

The Oklahoma state legislature has hardly any big picture views on anything at all. Their thinking is strictly stuck in the immediate short term. No planning for anything. Throw out a bunch of tax cut candy for voters. Then make deep cuts in all sorts of agencies, like "communist" public education. Then be surprised when teachers are fleeing by the thousands to neighboring states and local school districts are falling into a state of crisis. Families and even businesses start following those teachers out of the state.

The funny thing is many of those same "lawmakers" view highways as a form of communism too. Why waste many millions (or billions) of dollars on public works projects like roads? Not when the same taxpayer money can be handed back as tax cuts and/or re-directed to "public-private" partnerships to get some members of the good ole boy's network handsomely paid. Oklahoma is doing really well with its one-party legislature controlling all branches of government. We're ranking at or near dead last in every category.

It's a miracle we haven't had a super-spreader incident with this whole SARS-CoV-2 thing so far. Much of the state is, at best, doing half-ass half measures. The funny thing is Lawton, of all places, is one of the few towns in the state taking this pandemic pretty seriously. We already have a lot of restrictions in place, with new ones fixing to go into effect. Unfortunately there are no gates keeping people in the more lax areas from entering our town and further infecting the place.

So, with all that sad crap as a back drop, it sets up pretty well the constraints within which ODOT has to operate. We could have a better highway system and even sophisticated 4-level directional stack freeway to freeway interchanges, just like down in Texas. But we can't have that kind of stuff while our state legislature is staffed with too many short-sighted idiots.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 07, 2020, 11:38:03 PM
The Oklahoma state legislature has hardly any big picture views on anything at all. Their thinking is strictly stuck in the immediate short term. No planning for anything. Throw out a bunch of tax cut candy for voters. Then make deep cuts in all sorts of agencies, like "communist" public education. Then be surprised when teachers are fleeing by the thousands to neighboring states and local school districts are falling into a state of crisis. Families and even businesses start following those teachers out of the state.

The funny thing is many of those same "lawmakers" view highways as a form of communism too. Why waste many millions (or billions) of dollars on public works projects like roads? Not when the same taxpayer money can be handed back as tax cuts and/or re-directed to "public-private" partnerships to get some members of the good ole boy's network handsomely paid. Oklahoma is doing really well with its one-party legislature controlling all branches of government. We're ranking at or near dead last in every category.

It's a miracle we haven't had a super-spreader incident with this whole SARS-CoV-2 thing so far. Much of the state is, at best, doing half-ass half measures. The funny thing is Lawton, of all places, is one of the few towns in the state taking this pandemic pretty seriously. We already have a lot of restrictions in place, with new ones fixing to go into effect. Unfortunately there are no gates keeping people in the more lax areas from entering our town and further infecting the place.

So, with all that sad crap as a back drop, it sets up pretty well the constraints within which ODOT has to operate. We could have a better highway system and even sophisticated 4-level directional stack freeway to freeway interchanges, just like down in Texas. But we can't have that kind of stuff while our state legislature is staffed with too many short-sighted idiots.

While I would agree Oklahoma has made some odd decisions (especially around dealing with teachers unions), the facts are pretty clear that OK does not have as diverse an economy as Texas. Therefore they don't have the means to balance out revenue streams year after year. Oklahoma has no ocean port. Population density is not inline with Texas. A percentage of land is pre-allocated to tribal use. Their major GDP generation is around oil, agriculture and military. After that is aggregates and health care. If tornadoes created revenue, I am sure the Moore F5 would have paid everyone's bills.

Quote from: edwaleni on April 08, 2020, 01:57:31 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 07, 2020, 11:38:03 PM
The Oklahoma state legislature has hardly any big picture views on anything at all. Their thinking is strictly stuck in the immediate short term. No planning for anything. Throw out a bunch of tax cut candy for voters. Then make deep cuts in all sorts of agencies, like "communist" public education. Then be surprised when teachers are fleeing by the thousands to neighboring states and local school districts are falling into a state of crisis. Families and even businesses start following those teachers out of the state.

The funny thing is many of those same "lawmakers" view highways as a form of communism too. Why waste many millions (or billions) of dollars on public works projects like roads? Not when the same taxpayer money can be handed back as tax cuts and/or re-directed to "public-private" partnerships to get some members of the good ole boy's network handsomely paid. Oklahoma is doing really well with its one-party legislature controlling all branches of government. We're ranking at or near dead last in every category.

It's a miracle we haven't had a super-spreader incident with this whole SARS-CoV-2 thing so far. Much of the state is, at best, doing half-ass half measures. The funny thing is Lawton, of all places, is one of the few towns in the state taking this pandemic pretty seriously. We already have a lot of restrictions in place, with new ones fixing to go into effect. Unfortunately there are no gates keeping people in the more lax areas from entering our town and further infecting the place.

So, with all that sad crap as a back drop, it sets up pretty well the constraints within which ODOT has to operate. We could have a better highway system and even sophisticated 4-level directional stack freeway to freeway interchanges, just like down in Texas. But we can't have that kind of stuff while our state legislature is staffed with too many short-sighted idiots.

While I would agree Oklahoma has made some odd decisions (especially around dealing with teachers unions), the facts are pretty clear that OK does not have as diverse an economy as Texas. Therefore they don't have the means to balance out revenue streams year after year. Oklahoma has no ocean port. Population density is not inline with Texas. A percentage of land is pre-allocated to tribal use. Their major GDP generation is around oil, agriculture and military. After that is aggregates and health care. If tornadoes created revenue, I am sure the Moore F5 would have paid everyone's bills.

Much of the southeast corner of the state features a great deal of hardwood harvesting and processing (my family's historic business), even though there's been a great deal of consolidation of facilities, particularly after Weyerhaeuser went on a buying spree a few decades ago and bought up just about all the independent producers (such as Dierks Lumber).  Now -- whether it's only the presence of the OK-based facilities that provides economic benefit rather than direct revenues from the corporation would have to be determined by perusing their tax bills -- and state law that addresses whether the state tax obligation formerly derived from the original companies remains for the acquiring conglomerate.  Something tells me OK might well come out on the short end of that stick!   

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 07, 2020, 11:38:03 PM
The Oklahoma state legislature has hardly any big picture views on anything at all. Their thinking is strictly stuck in the immediate short term. No planning for anything. Throw out a bunch of tax cut candy for voters. Then make deep cuts in all sorts of agencies, like "communist" public education. Then be surprised when teachers are fleeing by the thousands to neighboring states and local school districts are falling into a state of crisis. Families and even businesses start following those teachers out of the state.

The funny thing is many of those same "lawmakers" view highways as a form of communism too. Why waste many millions (or billions) of dollars on public works projects like roads? Not when the same taxpayer money can be handed back as tax cuts and/or re-directed to "public-private" partnerships to get some members of the good ole boy's network handsomely paid. Oklahoma is doing really well with its one-party legislature controlling all branches of government. We're ranking at or near dead last in every category.

It's a miracle we haven't had a super-spreader incident with this whole SARS-CoV-2 thing so far. Much of the state is, at best, doing half-ass half measures. The funny thing is Lawton, of all places, is one of the few towns in the state taking this pandemic pretty seriously. We already have a lot of restrictions in place, with new ones fixing to go into effect. Unfortunately there are no gates keeping people in the more lax areas from entering our town and further infecting the place.

So, with all that sad crap as a back drop, it sets up pretty well the constraints within which ODOT has to operate. We could have a better highway system and even sophisticated 4-level directional stack freeway to freeway interchanges, just like down in Texas. But we can't have that kind of stuff while our state legislature is staffed with too many short-sighted idiots.

Not that I do not agree with you, but this short-term vision is the basis to the entire US economy. The entire stock market is measured by the hour; maybe by the trade. People like Carl Ican and others have pushed short term gains fo rso long, that they have even bled over to the governmental sector in many places. Why spend money if you have to pay for it yourself.

Quote from: edwaleniWhile I would agree Oklahoma has made some odd decisions (especially around dealing with teachers unions), the facts are pretty clear that OK does not have as diverse an economy as Texas.

Yes, there are giant size differences between Texas and Oklahoma. One state has nearly 29 million residents and the other has just under 4 million. The economies and tax bases are very different. But the issues with Oklahoma's roads and Oklahoma's state government are rooted in other problems besides lack of money. A bunch of it just comes down to poor management and very little in the way of long term vision. It's impossible to do something kind of "big," like extending I-45 up into (and maybe through) Oklahoma. It takes a good bit of that vision thing to turning around petty opposition in little po-dunk 'burgs to transform the vision into a reality.

It doesn't always require a fortune to future proof an important highway corridor. There is no secret sauce recipe with how Texas has managed to future proof various highways and important urban arterials. I've seen only rare instances of ODOT copying one or more of those methods on any road projects here in this state. The Duncan Bypass is one example of a 2 lane road that can be upgraded into a 4 lane freeway without having to acquire any additional ROW. The OK state government and ODOT blew it on some other important projects.

ODOT has an enormous burden of roads and bridges to maintain in rural areas that are aging, dying out and depopulating. They need to start doing some serious consolidation.

Quote from: bwana39Not that I do not agree with you, but this short-term vision is the basis to the entire US economy. The entire stock market is measured by the hour; maybe by the trade. People like Carl Ican and others have pushed short term gains fo rso long, that they have even bled over to the governmental sector in many places. Why spend money if you have to pay for it yourself.

The Interstate Highway System was not created with any short term mind set. Back when the legislation was first signed and efforts to build it began the whole thing was approached with a big picture, long term mind set. Not this short term, self-serving crap we have now. I've said it numerous times before. If the Interstate Highway System didn't exist today and the lawmakers of our current day set out to build it they would fail horribly. The project would never get off the ground. That's the status of "America" today at building big things. There's no Manhattan Project or Moon Shot anymore.

For those of you wondering, the only stretch of US-75 in Texas that is not up to interstate standards (besides the HOV area in Collin County) is in Sherman, referred to locals as "The Gap." Reconstruction is currently underway, and should be completed by the start of 2023. From there, local officials will work towards asking for an interstate designation.

It should also be noted that US-75 is also being rebuilt from Anna to the Grayson Co.-Collin Co. border. Plans are in place to begin work in 2024 within Grayson County from that border up to FM 1417 in Sherman, where The Gap project will be complete. Once that is complete, work will shift to the north side of The Gap, going through Sherman and Denison to FM 120. There are no scheduled plans to rebuild the highway north of FM 120 to the Texas-Oklahoma border.

Hopefully, by 2030 or 2035, I-45 will terminate at either the Red River or US-69 interchange, and have 6 lanes up to FM 120 in Denison.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/paris/us75-corridor-study.html
https://www.heralddemocrat.com/news/20190612/us-highway-75-sees-more-freight-traffic-than-i-35-sdmpo-finds

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 09, 2020, 04:57:07 PM
But the issues with Oklahoma's roads and Oklahoma's state government are rooted in other problems besides lack of money. A bunch of it just comes down to poor management and very little in the way of long term vision.

As I've mentioned both here and on OKCTalk, stuff like the Craig County sign isn't due to a lack of money. Making a well-laid-out sign usually costs the same as a shitty one. Which means that just throwing money at ODOT probably won't fix its problems.

QuoteODOT has an enormous burden of roads and bridges to maintain in rural areas that are aging, dying out and depopulating. They need to start doing some serious consolidation.

Not really. Compared to states like AR, KY, MO, or NC that have gobs and gobs of secondaries, the Oklahoma highway system looks comparatively rational and streamlined. You can quibble around with some spurs here and there that could be dropped, but there's not much fat to cut.

Most of the unmet maintenance burden in rural areas is the responsibility of the counties.

Quote from: rtXC1 on April 09, 2020, 06:59:14 PM
For those of you wondering, the only stretch of US-75 in Texas that is not up to interstate standards (besides the HOV area in Collin County) is in Sherman, referred to locals as "The Gap." Reconstruction is currently underway, and should be completed by the start of 2023. From there, local officials will work towards asking for an interstate designation.

It should also be noted that US-75 is also being rebuilt from Anna to the Grayson Co.-Collin Co. border. Plans are in place to begin work in 2024 within Grayson County from that border up to FM 1417 in Sherman, where The Gap project will be complete. Once that is complete, work will shift to the north side of The Gap, going through Sherman and Denison to FM 120. There are no scheduled plans to rebuild the highway north of FM 120 to the Texas-Oklahoma border.

Hopefully, by 2030 or 2035, I-45 will terminate at either the Red River or US-69 interchange, and have 6 lanes up to FM 120 in Denison.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/paris/us75-corridor-study.html
https://www.heralddemocrat.com/news/20190612/us-highway-75-sees-more-freight-traffic-than-i-35-sdmpo-finds

Adding lanes to US 75 between the Collin-Grayson county line and Shepherd Road will be easy. TxDOT completely reconstructed this stretch in 2004 and planned for additional lanes. There is a short 2-mile stretch between Shepherd Road and FM 1417 that is still on the original roadway that will have to be reconstructed.

Quote from: Road Hog on April 10, 2020, 02:59:48 PM

Quote from: rtXC1 on April 09, 2020, 06:59:14 PM
For those of you wondering, the only stretch of US-75 in Texas that is not up to interstate standards (besides the HOV area in Collin County) is in Sherman, referred to locals as "The Gap." Reconstruction is currently underway, and should be completed by the start of 2023. From there, local officials will work towards asking for an interstate designation.

It should also be noted that US-75 is also being rebuilt from Anna to the Grayson Co.-Collin Co. border. Plans are in place to begin work in 2024 within Grayson County from that border up to FM 1417 in Sherman, where The Gap project will be complete. Once that is complete, work will shift to the north side of The Gap, going through Sherman and Denison to FM 120. There are no scheduled plans to rebuild the highway north of FM 120 to the Texas-Oklahoma border.

Hopefully, by 2030 or 2035, I-45 will terminate at either the Red River or US-69 interchange, and have 6 lanes up to FM 120 in Denison.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/paris/us75-corridor-study.html
https://www.heralddemocrat.com/news/20190612/us-highway-75-sees-more-freight-traffic-than-i-35-sdmpo-finds

Adding lanes to US 75 between the Collin-Grayson county line and Shepherd Road will be easy. TxDOT completely reconstructed this stretch in 2004 and planned for additional lanes. There is a short 2-mile stretch between Shepherd Road and FM 1417 that is still on the original roadway that will have to be reconstructed.

Correct, designed with "stealth lanes". The outside area past the shoulder is graded to be paved, only minimal work required. Used to be the location of the previous lanes until they shifted the new, reconstructed ones to the inside. Only certain bridges will need widening.

FWIW, it looks like Kansas does want to make US69 a freeway almost down to the Oklahoma border, although it's probably not going to happen anytime soon. This link is from their Consult Meetings at the end of last year for the FORWARD program: https://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/LocalConsult/2019R2LocalConsultDistrict4Projects.pdf

If Oklahoma ever decides to upgrade US69 to freeway, I-45 could be extended all the way to the Kansas City area. I wouldn't hold my breath though. KS and TX will probably finish their parts way before OK even does anything.

Quote from: Road Hog on April 10, 2020, 02:59:48 PM

Quote from: rtXC1 on April 09, 2020, 06:59:14 PM
For those of you wondering, the only stretch of US-75 in Texas that is not up to interstate standards (besides the HOV area in Collin County) is in Sherman, referred to locals as "The Gap." Reconstruction is currently underway, and should be completed by the start of 2023. From there, local officials will work towards asking for an interstate designation.

It should also be noted that US-75 is also being rebuilt from Anna to the Grayson Co.-Collin Co. border. Plans are in place to begin work in 2024 within Grayson County from that border up to FM 1417 in Sherman, where The Gap project will be complete. Once that is complete, work will shift to the north side of The Gap, going through Sherman and Denison to FM 120. There are no scheduled plans to rebuild the highway north of FM 120 to the Texas-Oklahoma border.

Hopefully, by 2030 or 2035, I-45 will terminate at either the Red River or US-69 interchange, and have 6 lanes up to FM 120 in Denison.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/paris/us75-corridor-study.html
https://www.heralddemocrat.com/news/20190612/us-highway-75-sees-more-freight-traffic-than-i-35-sdmpo-finds

Adding lanes to US 75 between the Collin-Grayson county line and Shepherd Road will be easy. TxDOT completely reconstructed this stretch in 2004 and planned for additional lanes. There is a short 2-mile stretch between Shepherd Road and FM 1417 that is still on the original roadway that will have to be reconstructed.

Yes, and even a complete rebuild from Sherman to Denison won't be a headache due to the massive amount of median along that stretch.

At this point, ODOT effectively washing its hands of the Muskogee bypass has cast a pall over the whole US 69-to-I-45 concept -- at least north of I-40.  Since OK has had Fed approval of route conversion up from TX to that point since 1991, what I think will happen (with concurrence from my cousin the OK county judge) is that eventually Atoka and the smaller speed traps along US 69 will be bypassed one at a time and the route elevated to Interstate standards by about 2035-2040.  But unless there's a sea change with Muskogee attitudes, mirrored at the state level, I-40 will be the northern terminus for the foreseeable future.  That'll give commercial drivers the choice of saving miles by staying on US 69 north to Big Cabin or shunting over I-40 to I-49 once the AR/MO missing link is completed. 

Quote from: mvak36 on April 10, 2020, 06:03:47 PM
FWIW, it looks like Kansas does want to make US69 a freeway almost down to the Oklahoma border, although it's probably not going to happen anytime soon. This link is from their Consult Meetings at the end of last year for the FORWARD program: https://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/LocalConsult/2019R2LocalConsultDistrict4Projects.pdf

If Oklahoma ever decides to upgrade US69 to freeway, I-45 could be extended all the way to the Kansas City area. I wouldn't hold my breath though. KS and TX will probably finish their parts way before OK even does anything.

Fancifully -- if what I surmise above comes to pass, this could conceivably be I-47!   :sombrero:

Quote from: sparker on April 10, 2020, 07:06:54 PM

Fancifully -- if what I surmise above comes to pass, this could conceivably be I-47!   :sombrero:

I'd be ok with that  :colorful:.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 09, 2020, 04:57:07 PM

Quote from: edwaleniWhile I would agree Oklahoma has made some odd decisions (especially around dealing with teachers unions), the facts are pretty clear that OK does not have as diverse an economy as Texas.

Yes, the are giant size differences between Texas and Oklahoma. One state has nearly 29 million residents and the other has just under 4 million. The economies and tax bases are very different. But the issues with Oklahoma's roads and Oklahoma's state government are rooted in other problems besides lack of money. A bunch of it just comes down to poor management and very little in the way of long term vision. It's impossible to do something kind of "big," like extending I-45 up into (and maybe through) Oklahoma. It takes a good bit of that vision thing to turning around petty opposition in little po-dunk 'burgs to transform the vision into a reality.

It doesn't always require a fortune to future proof an important highway corridor. There is no secret sauce recipe with how Texas has managed to future proof various highways and important urban arterials. I've seen only rare instances of ODOT copying one or more of those methods on any road projects here in this state. The Duncan Bypass is one example of a 2 lane road that can be upgraded into a 4 lane freeway without having to acquire any additional ROW. The OK state government and ODOT blew it on some other important projects.

ODOT has an enormous burden of roads and bridges to maintain in rural areas that are aging, dying out and depopulating. They need to start doing some serious consolidation.

Quote from: bwana39Not that I do not agree with you, but this short-term vision is the basis to the entire US economy. The entire stock market is measured by the hour; maybe by the trade. People like Carl Ican and others have pushed short term gains fo rso long, that they have even bled over to the governmental sector in many places. Why spend money if you have to pay for it yourself.

The Interstate Highway System was not created with any short term mind set. Back when the legislation was first signed and efforts to build it began the whole thing was approached with a big picture, long term mind set. Not this short term, self-serving crap we have now. I've said it numerous times before. If the Interstate Highway System didn't exist today and the lawmakers of our current day set out to build it they would fail horribly. The project would never get off the ground. That's the status of "America" today at building big things. There's no Manhattan Project or Moon Shot anymore.

Bobby, Texas ain't as good as you are thinking it is. Remember that they failed miserably on US 380 Denton-McKinney. All that development happened in just the last 10-15 years. Also, in my opinion, they should have preserved ROW for a frwy on FM 2499, but failed there, too. The idiots are now building new shit along FM 2499 below Grapevine Dam on the section that is already horribly congested and needed to be a freeway 15 years ago

^^^^ when you are familiar with Oklahoma, more specifically OKC or tulsa, and see how well planned Texas cities are compared to Oklahoma cities, Texas is like going from 99 cent store to a flagship Bloomingdales.

Quote from: Brian556Bobby, Texas ain't as good as you are thinking it is. Remember that they failed miserably on US 380 Denton-McKinney. All that development happened in just the last 10-15 years. Also, in my opinion, they should have preserved ROW for a frwy on FM 2499, but failed there, too.

At least Texas has a good number of examples of correctly planning in advance. Compare that to Oklahoma, which pretty much adds up to a history of doing the very least amount possible almost 100% of the time.

Yes, I fully agree planners in the DFW area totally missed the boat on US-380 between Denton and McKinney. Way back in the early 1990's when plans were brewing to build the new TX-121 tollway from Lewisville to McKinney they should have already started plans on upgrades for US-380. They should have stepped in to keep developers from building too close to the existing road. Even US-82 between Gainesville and Sherman should have been considered since that corridor is now also in trouble. The planners there at least have the excuse for not being able to predict all of the explosive growth that took off in the northern suburbs of DFW in a relatively short amount of time.

Oklahoma doesn't have the same excuse. During the same period that growth started to explode in the DFW metroplex some good hints of growth were taking place in the OKC metro. ODOT and the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority knew what they needed to do: build an outer loop to serve growth in Edmond, Yukon, Mustang and Norman. They did get the Kilpatrick Turnpike built on the North side of OKC. But all they accomplished on the South side was an incomplete stub from I-44 toward Norman and a 4-lane bridge over the Canadian River miles South of Mustang. ODOT and OTA did nothing in the 20 years since on the OK-4 and OK-9 corridors. So now we have a stupidly crooked and abbreviated "extension" of the Kilpatrick going North of the airport rather than down and over to Norman as originally intended.

Oklahoma has the same problems with other corridors, such as US-69.

Quote from: sparkerAt this point, ODOT effectively washing its hands of the Muskogee bypass has cast a pall over the whole US 69-to-I-45 concept -- at least north of I-40.  Since OK has had Fed approval of route conversion up from TX to that point since 1991, what I think will happen (with concurrence from my cousin the OK county judge) is that eventually Atoka and the smaller speed traps along US 69 will be bypassed one at a time and the route elevated to Interstate standards by about 2035-2040.

One morbidly bright side is virtually zero young people want to move to and live in either Atoka or Stringtown. Both of those towns will continue to age and literally die off. Eventually there will be no living opposition to improving US-69/75 to Interstate standards through there and up to I-40. Such a thing might take 10-20 years. But it seems inevitable.

If Kansas is keen on improving their portion of US-69 to Interstate standards it could force the town fathers of Muskogee to fall in line on some kind of upgrade plan. That is if Kansas asks for the I-45 designation on that part of US-69. They could just as easily say "screw it" and apply "I-47" to that route and let it end at I-44 up near Miami, OK. The folks in Muskogee might not realize there is a possible play to bend a future I-45 up along US-75 through Tulsa. Maybe people in Henryetta and Olkmulgee might prefer I-45 to come through their towns rather than go through Muskogee. The obstructionist folks in Muskogee might find their town bypassed in both directions by failing to see the long game. Tulsa does like to act like it is "Tulsa, France" at times. But if I-45 was really going to be extended up through Oklahoma, which city would more likely to be a stop on that major Interstate route, Tulsa or Muskogee? There is a serious rivalry between OKC and Tulsa. The OKC metro has I-35 as its major North-South highway corridor. Tulsa has US-75, an "inferior" not-Interstate route. If Tulsa had I-45 it might seem like it was on more of an equal footing in term of highway access.

^^^^^^^^^
If I-45 ended up shunting on to the INT near McAlester (with the remaining section up to I-40 at Checotah likely becoming a x45) and segueing onto US 75 up to Tulsa, that's probably as far as it'll get on its own; there's just no need for any extensions up US 75 or 169 north of there.  That would leave KS free to designate something like I-47 over US 69 if that were their prerogative (unless the Will Rogers portion of I-44 were to be a very long multiplex).  But Bobby's assessment of Muskogee's rather limited long-term viewpoint is spot on; to save some clearly marginal and traffic-dependent extant businesses the longer-term prospects for that town are being sacrificed.  But, sorry to say, OK is not particularly known for innovative or even clever approaches to addressing this type of situation; they simply do nothing and the "can" ends up effectively being kicked down the road for another generation. 

The situation with Muskogee blocking upgrades of the US-69 corridor is stupid in multiple ways.

Despite whatever happens with I-45 lots of heavy trucks are going to keep on using the US-69 corridor and putting LOTS of wear on tear on local surface streets in Muskogee. 32nd Street in Muskogee is a regular surface street with several stop light controlled intersections and lots of other cross streets. Even if no other freeway upgrades happened along US-69 I think it's still necessary for Muskogee to have a freeway quality bypass around its West side.

As for an extension of I-45 ending in Tulsa, odds are strong such an extension would terminate at I-44. However, there are two possible routes North out of Tulsa for an I-45 extension to take. One possibility is going along US-169 through Owasso and up to Coffeyville, KS (home to a large Amazon distribution center). US-169 in Kansas has a lot of segments with limited access exits, some in Super-2 configuration and other stretches as 4-lane highway. It wouldn't be so difficult upgrading that route. The other possibility is following along or near US-75 around Bartlesville and up to Independence and then bending to the US-169 corridor. This would be a more difficult path since it would require a lot of new terrain highway.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 11, 2020, 03:54:27 PM
The situation with Muskogee blocking upgrades of the US-69 corridor is stupid in multiple ways.

Despite whatever happens with I-45 lots of heavy trucks are going to keep on using the US-69 corridor and putting LOTS of wear on tear on local surface streets in Muskogee. 32nd Street in Muskogee is a regular surface street with several stop light controlled intersections and lots of other cross streets. Even if no other freeway upgrades happened along US-69 I think it's still necessary for Muskogee to have a freeway quality bypass around its West side.

As for an extension of I-45 ending in Tulsa, odds are strong such an extension would terminate at I-44. However, there are two possible routes North out of Tulsa for an I-45 extension to take. One possibility is going along US-169 through Owasso and up to Coffeyville, KS (home to a large Amazon distribution center). US-169 in Kansas has a lot of segments with limited access exits, some in Super-2 configuration and other stretches as 4-lane highway. It wouldn't be so difficult upgrading that route. The other possibility is following along or near US-75 around Bartlesville and up to Independence and then bending to the US-169 corridor. This would be a more difficult path since it would require a lot of new terrain highway.

Since such a I-45 extension would be just one more "radial" road serving Kansas City (it'd start looking even more like Indianapolis than it does today!), if something north of Tulsa were to be considered, KS just might push for something directly into Topeka or even farther north on US 75 toward Omaha.  Like 169, 75 has sporadic freeway (some similarly super-2) segments both south and north of Topeka.  And KC-bound traffic would simply shift to I-35 at the current US 75 interchange.  (......advance apologies for veering a bit into fictional here).   

A tad of topic but Bartlesville needs an interstate grade connection to tulsa.

Quote from: sparkerSince such a I-45 extension would be just one more "radial" road serving Kansas City (it'd start looking even more like Indianapolis than it does today!), if something north of Tulsa were to be considered, KS just might push for something directly into Topeka or even farther north on US 75 toward Omaha.

The Kansas City metro would be a more logical terminus of a Northern extension of I-45. The KC metro is not only already a major highway hub, but it's also by far one of the biggest freight rail hubs in the US.

US-69 going out of the KC metro is already fairly well developed; it's a fully limited access freeway from the split with I-35 in Overland Park down to Fort Scott 80 miles to the South. It's another 60 miles straight South to I-44 in the NE corner of OK. That last 60 miles, going through or around tows like Pittsburg and Baxter Springs would be harder to build since a decent amount of new terrain road would be required. But it's still a do-able project. US-69 could use some widening in the Overland Park/Lenexa area. There is a lot of warehouses and distribution centers near the US-69/I-35 split.

The split with US-169 and I-35 in Olathe is also home to a lot of warehouses. US-169 does not have a freeway to freeway connection there. But there is plenty of room to build a new freeway connection a mile or so SW on I-35. It could dovetail into US-169 near Spring Hill where US-169 turns into a 4-lane freeway down to Osawatomie. From there US-169 turns into a Super 2 grade route with some limited access exits down to Coffeyville.

US-75 going up through Topeka is a more straight route from Tulsa to Omaha. Topeka has existing freeway stubs for US-75 going North and South out of that city. But the big question is which destination is more important for traffic coming up from the Tulsa area? Kansas City or Omaha? Both US-69 and US-169 appear to have more freeway development on them than US-75 since the Kansas City metro is a much larger hub than Omaha.

Quote from: Plutonic PandaA tad of topic but Bartlesville needs an interstate grade connection to tulsa.

Such a thing would be do-able. US-75 is a divided 4-lane highway most of the way. It's a freeway going North out of Tulsa and has a few freeway style exits after it drops to an expressway type road. Now I don't know how one builds a freeway into Bartlesville itself. At best a bypass could be built around the East side of Bartlesville and Dewey.

^^^^^^^^^^^
Since KS seems to be leaning toward a southward extension of the US 69 freeway, and its roadbuilding resources are limited, that would likely be the next long "radial" corridor out of KC; while some of its service is duplicated by I-49 eastward across the state line in MO, there are significant KS towns along 69 (Ft. Scott, Pittsburg) that could be cited as rationales for a parallel corridor (any roadside revenue from which would remain in KS).  Completing that freeway could be just about it for extensive freeway construction for some time in that state; a Tulsa-KC or Topeka Interstate corridor would require a great deal of pressure (and counterintuitive measures for KS politicos) to reach fruition in the foreseeable future.  If diverted to Tulsa, I-45 will likely simply terminate in Tulsa at I-44 (actually I-244!); any Bartlesville extension would simply be an x44.  The US 69/KS corridor, regardless of designation choice, would probably be a stand-alone concept.

I could also conceivably see a freeway corridor splitting off from US-75 at some point to hit I-35 near Ottawa, then follow the US-59 freeway up to Lawrence. That would also offer easy KC freeway access via I-35.

Quote from: sparkerSince KS seems to be leaning toward a southward extension of the US 69 freeway, and its roadbuilding resources are limited, that would likely be the next long "radial" corridor out of KC; while some of its service is duplicated by I-49 eastward across the state line in MO, there are significant KS towns along 69 (Ft. Scott, Pittsburg) that could be cited as rationales for a parallel corridor (any roadside revenue from which would remain in KS).

The only East-West corridor I can imagine being built up to Interstate standards in Southern Kansas would be something coming from the Joplin area and headed toward Wichita. US-400 sort of works like that now. But it's kind of a crappy, crooked route with way too many sections already closely encroached with commercial and residential development.

One thing that works against extending the US-69 freeway from Fort Scott down to I-44: it provides little in the way of mileage savings or even toll road savings for people driving from Kansas City to Oklahoma City versus taking I-35. When you look at the I-35 route versus the I-44/US-69 combo it's kind of like looking at a parallelogram shape. Traffic coming up through Tulsa might be looking for additional savings on mileage, time and tolls. That's another factor where US-169 coming up out of Tulsa has an advantage.

That's yet another thing for the freeway blockers in Muskogee to consider. I understand they don't want a freeway taking business from their town. But they have to understand much of the traffic coming through their town could end up being diverted to a better corridor going through Tulsa. And that would be even worse for their local business.

Quote from: sparkerCompleting that freeway could be just about it for extensive freeway construction for some time in that state; a Tulsa-KC or Topeka Interstate corridor would require a great deal of pressure (and counterintuitive measures for KS politicos) to reach fruition in the foreseeable future.  If diverted to Tulsa, I-45 will likely simply terminate in Tulsa at I-44 (actually I-244!); any Bartlesville extension would simply be an x44.  The US 69/KS corridor, regardless of designation choice, would probably be a stand-alone concept.

Repeating what I said earlier, the US-169 corridor going South out of KC is a significant corridor in its own right. That distribution hub in Coffeyville is one selling point in the favor of US-169, as is being a shorter (and free) route from KC to Tulsa.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 12, 2020, 09:25:21 PM
Repeating what I said earlier, the US-169 corridor going South out of KC is a significant corridor in its own right. That distribution hub in Coffeyville is one selling point in the favor of US-169, as is being a shorter (and free) route from KC to Tulsa.

IIRC, the US 169 corridor -- arguably the most direct Tulsa-KC route -- was one of those corridors submitted for Interstate additions back in 1968; the concept was "re-upped" two years later when a 2nd batch of routes were under consideration for a second round of additions that never got past legislative hurdles.  Many of the corridors constituting the 3000 original miles deleted in the '68 group when it was severely cut back were not only resubmitted in '70 but actually persisted as concepts until '91's ISTEA and '95's NHS acts, which put national planning -- albeit without a dedicated funding pool -- back in the game on a limited basis.  The I-49 and I-22 corridors were among those considered 50 years ago but not developed until recent decades, as was the I-69 corridor in IN and from Shreveport to Houston and on to Brownsville.   But so far the US 169-based KS corridor (the '70 corridor stopped at the OK state line) hasn't seen the light of day regarding any active promotional efforts from within either affected state. 

Interestingly, the discussed I-45 extension into OK was one of the corridors deleted in '68 and resubmitted within the ill-starred '70 effort; while the original was a straightforward Dallas-Big Cabin effort, the one two years later only included the OK segment -- and only as far north as I-40/Checotah.  Not coincidentally, that corridor was included as a codicil (sec. 1174) within the '91 ISTEA legislation as a future Interstate if submitted by ODOT "........iiiiiit's Baaaaack!".  So the concept has been hanging around for 52 years, and actually federally approved for 29 of those.  But the OK congressional delegation, having successfully inserted that into U.S. Code, hasn't seemed in any hurry to follow through with the notion, probably since the the OK state government hasn't seen fit to themselves cooperate in any manner aside from "spot" projects (Durant, Calera, McAlester), likely due to reasons best elucidated by in-state posters.   

Re: using the INT from McAlester to Henryetta for I-45. Could work to extend to Tulsa except for a highly expensive Okmulgee bypass. The rest of it wouldn't be difficult.

Despite what others have said, politics is the rule in every state.  Road funds have to be equitably divided between districts over a certain time period. That is why you won't seen any major projects around Duncan since they sucked up their part with the Duncan bypass. The Elk Avenue interchange will happen because of the tremendous safety issues there. Say goodbye to a Marlow bypass in our lifetime.

ODOT does make long-range plans but they are often changed because the Legislature continually robs them of dedicated funding. I know for a fact they want to fix Rogers Lane in Lawton but there is no $$.  And it will not be cheap to bring 69 up to interstate standards north of Caddo to McAlester. Lots of hilly terrain. At least they are improving the McAlester bypass.

Quote from: rte66man on April 13, 2020, 01:40:49 PM
Re: using the INT from McAlester to Henryetta for I-45. Could work to extend to Tulsa except for a highly expensive Okmulgee bypass. The rest of it wouldn't be difficult.

Despite what others have said, politics is the rule in every state.  Road funds have to be equitably divided between districts over a certain time period. That is why you won't seen any major projects around Duncan since they sucked up their part with the Duncan bypass. The Elk Avenue interchange will happen because of the tremendous safety issues there. Say goodbye to a Marlow bypass in our lifetime.

ODOT does make long-range plans but they are often changed because the Legislature continually robs them of dedicated funding. I know for a fact they want to fix Rogers Lane in Lawton but there is no $$.  And it will not be cheap to bring 69 up to interstate standards north of Caddo to McAlester. Lots of hilly terrain. At least they are improving the McAlester bypass.

So -- where does the money initially slated for ODOT projects actually go?  It sounds like OK state funding resembles a "shell game", with rotating prioritizations.  Guess limited revenue prospects result in this type of situation.  And while US 69 does encounter rolling hills from Durant north to at least McAlester, there's no reason to assume that the cost is prohibitive -- if a major rail line can get through those hills -- and there's already a divided conventional highway in place, upgrading it to interstate standards (even with some instances of new-terrain alignment for bypasses) shouldn't be significantly greater than other projects such as I-49 through NWA.   It appears to be more lack of political will -- or, correspondingly, fear of offending the populace along the corridor -- that has resulted in inaction on the portion north of Bryan County (which has generally welcomed the improvements).   

The most basic problem: there is very little in the way of big picture long term planning for the future in Oklahoma.

I think there is a lot more in the way of influential people pushing the state legislature to do things that benefit them directly in the short term. Hence the obsession with cutting taxes and using ideological dogma to get those cuts. So things like public education take deep cuts. And even gas tax funded roads look like a version of "socialism" to lawmakers, despite the broad unpopularity of turnpikes. A major super highway project, such as extending I-45 well into or even through Oklahoma, would take a long term commitment. It would take multiple election cycles and administration changes before the project was completed. Politicians don't like that. Even voters don't like it. These people are only interested in things that can be done inside a 4-year period.

Then there is all the regional in-fighting that happens within Oklahoma. It's Tulsa versus Oklahoma City. Or it's the East half of the state versus the West half. Lawton misses out on a lot of needed things (such as an Interstate quality upgrade of Rogers Lane) because it doesn't have the population, money and political clout of more populous areas. The US-69 corridor from the Red River to Big Cabin is a mostly rural route and doesn't directly serve Tulsa or OKC. Muskogee and McAlester don't have the same "pull" as those bigger cities.

One factor that could one day prod Oklahoma's legislature to do something: the state's inferiority complex with Texas. The differences are pretty big in the category of roads.

For instance, Texas is going to continue its dramatic improvements of the US-75 freeway going North out of McKinney. Eventually that widening project will go up to the Red River. Drivers will notice an even more serious drop in road quality with US-75 when they cross into Oklahoma. I think it's unlikely Texas will sign their Northern section of US-75 as I-45. But if they did it would make the differences even more stark. Compound the situation further with an eventual extension of the Dallas North Tollway into US-75 just South of the Red River. Either way, a vastly improved US-75 South of the Red River could embarrass Oklahoma lawmakers enough to make them act.

Just in dollars and cents terms, I wonder how towns like Atoka and Stringtown can even get any business from highway travelers. The speed traps there already anger many drivers, making them not want to stop in those towns to fuel up or eat just on the matter of principal. Their fuel prices are usually 20¢ per gallon higher than the prices in McAlester or South across the Red River in Denison. Fuel prices are even higher in Durant, but they have the Choctaw Casino there. So, overall, US-69 between the Red River and McAlester is the highway equivalent of "flyover territory."

Still, even if Texas managed to shame the hell out of Oklahoma with their upgraded version of US-75 it's likely Oklahoma's legislature would still wage lots of turf wars over a US-75/69 project in Oklahoma. If we're lucky the upgrades of US-69 in McAlester might still happen. The Calera project would be another piece in the puzzle. It's going to take a major ideological overhaul of Oklahoma's state government (along with continued dying off in Atoka and Stringtown) for much of anything else to happen.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 13, 2020, 03:11:27 PM
The most basic problem: there is very little in the way of big picture long term planning for the future in Oklahoma.

I think there is a lot more in the way of influential people pushing the state legislature to do things that benefit them directly in the short term. Hence the obsession with cutting taxes and using ideological dogma to get those cuts. So things like public education take deep cuts. And even gas tax funded roads look like a version of "socialism" to lawmakers, despite the broad unpopularity of turnpikes. A major super highway project, such as extending I-45 well into or even through Oklahoma, would take a long term commitment. It would take multiple election cycles and administration changes before the project was completed. Politicians don't like that. Even voters don't like it. These people are only interested in things that can be done inside a 4-year period.

Exacerbating the problem is Oklahoma's legislative term limits. That means you have just as much turnover in the legislative branch as you do in the executive. The constant influx of legislative rookies makes putting together a plan unworkable. And again, what's the incentive for legislators to do long-term planning if they're going to be gone by the time the project is complete?

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 13, 2020, 07:53:07 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 13, 2020, 03:11:27 PM
The most basic problem: there is very little in the way of big picture long term planning for the future in Oklahoma.

I think there is a lot more in the way of influential people pushing the state legislature to do things that benefit them directly in the short term. Hence the obsession with cutting taxes and using ideological dogma to get those cuts. So things like public education take deep cuts. And even gas tax funded roads look like a version of "socialism" to lawmakers, despite the broad unpopularity of turnpikes. A major super highway project, such as extending I-45 well into or even through Oklahoma, would take a long term commitment. It would take multiple election cycles and administration changes before the project was completed. Politicians don't like that. Even voters don't like it. These people are only interested in things that can be done inside a 4-year period.

Exacerbating the problem is Oklahoma's legislative term limits. That means you have just as much turnover in the legislative branch as you do in the executive. The constant influx of legislative rookies makes putting together a plan unworkable. And again, what's the incentive for legislators to do long-term planning if they're going to be gone by the time the project is complete?

Ha!  If they do like they do out here in CA, with 20-odd years of term limits in the bank, a legislator in one house (e.g. the State Assembly) will simply run for another office in the other house (State Senate); if he or she gets the support of the regional party leaders, that transition is expedited.  Some can -- and have -- gone the other way, from Senate down to Assembly.  Of course they can run for Congress as well -- or even try to win election as a county supervisor (which in large-population counties can yield more actual power than a legislative office).  It can look like a game of musical chairs at times!

The term limit is 12 years in the Legislature, regardless of house. If you do six in the House, you can only do six in the Senate and then you're out.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 16, 2020, 07:30:22 AM
The term limit is 12 years in the Legislature, regardless of house. If you do six in the House, you can only do six in the Senate and then you're out.

Same here with Legislative terms, but an aggregate total isn't spelled out -- just 3 terms for each house.  But, as I said previously, a lot of our politicos just shift from one level of government to another (cities & counties can set their own limits, but few actually do so).  They'll just stick around long enough to determine where all the bodies are buried, at which time they'll become "indispensable" and show up later on, as consultants or even "sequestered" in associated private enterprises until such time as an office they have yet to occupy becomes vacant.   This process is endemic right here in San Jose -- in fact, it's been S.O.P. since term limits were instituted in the early '90's. 

Quote from: rtXC1 on April 09, 2020, 06:59:14 PM
For those of you wondering, the only stretch of US-75 in Texas that is not up to interstate standards (besides the HOV area in Collin County) is in Sherman, referred to locals as "The Gap." Reconstruction is currently underway, and should be completed by the start of 2023. From there, local officials will work towards asking for an interstate designation.

Where is this gap? Which exits are at each end?

Quote from: bugo on April 17, 2020, 06:50:58 AM

Quote from: rtXC1 on April 09, 2020, 06:59:14 PM
For those of you wondering, the only stretch of US-75 in Texas that is not up to interstate standards (besides the HOV area in Collin County) is in Sherman, referred to locals as "The Gap." Reconstruction is currently underway, and should be completed by the start of 2023. From there, local officials will work towards asking for an interstate designation.

Where is this gap? Which exits are at each end?

It's not really a US 75 gap, just an area that's not as interstate-like as the parts south and north of Sherman's center.  I'm not sure of the exact stretch that will be worked on, but it's north of FM 1417 and south of US 82--mostly the downtown exits and the south end of TX 91-Texoma Pkwy.

Quote from: -- US 175 -- on April 17, 2020, 11:58:07 AM

Quote from: bugo on April 17, 2020, 06:50:58 AM

Quote from: rtXC1 on April 09, 2020, 06:59:14 PM
For those of you wondering, the only stretch of US-75 in Texas that is not up to interstate standards (besides the HOV area in Collin County) is in Sherman, referred to locals as "The Gap." Reconstruction is currently underway, and should be completed by the start of 2023. From there, local officials will work towards asking for an interstate designation.

Where is this gap? Which exits are at each end?

It's not really a US 75 gap, just an area that's not as interstate-like as the parts south and north of Sherman's center.  I'm not sure of the exact stretch that will be worked on, but it's north of FM 1417 and south of US 82--mostly the downtown exits and the south end of TX 91-Texoma Pkwy.

The "gap"  is full freeway standards, it just doesn't conform to full interstate standards.

Quote from: bugo on April 17, 2020, 06:50:58 AM

Quote from: rtXC1 on April 09, 2020, 06:59:14 PM
For those of you wondering, the only stretch of US-75 in Texas that is not up to interstate standards (besides the HOV area in Collin County) is in Sherman, referred to locals as "The Gap." Reconstruction is currently underway, and should be completed by the start of 2023. From there, local officials will work towards asking for an interstate designation.

Where is this gap? Which exits are at each end?

The "GAP" is a freeway section built as a downtown bypass of Sherman in the fifties.  It, as has been noted, does not meet Interstate standards. Among the shortcomings are: Too tight curves. Too short exit and entry ramps. No acceleration lanes.

During the upgrade, they are also going to add through frontage roads, widen from 2X2 to ( I cannot remember which 3X3 or 4X4),  widen the newer portions to the north and south of downtown, and upgrade the US75 / US 82 intersection (Both roads are freeways, but no stack is planned.) 

Ultimately, this freeway (US-75) will be at least 3X3 from downtown Dallas to the Red River. This is the biggest project the Paris District of TXDOT has ever done.

Quote from: bwana39 on April 20, 2020, 11:13:36 AM

Quote from: bugo on April 17, 2020, 06:50:58 AM

Quote from: rtXC1 on April 09, 2020, 06:59:14 PM
For those of you wondering, the only stretch of US-75 in Texas that is not up to interstate standards (besides the HOV area in Collin County) is in Sherman, referred to locals as "The Gap." Reconstruction is currently underway, and should be completed by the start of 2023. From there, local officials will work towards asking for an interstate designation.

Where is this gap? Which exits are at each end?

The "GAP" is a freeway section built as a downtown bypass of Sherman in the fifties.  It, as has been noted, does not meet Interstate standards. Among the shortcomings are: Too tight curves. Too short exit and entry ramps. No acceleration lanes.

During the upgrade, they are also going to add through frontage roads, widen from 2X2 to ( I cannot remember which 3X3 or 4X4),  widen the newer portions to the north and south of downtown, and upgrade the US75 / US 82 intersection (Both roads are freeways, but no stack is planned.) 

Ultimately, this freeway (US-75) will be at least 3X3 from downtown Dallas to the Red River. This is the biggest project the Paris District of TXDOT has ever done.

Re the 75/82 interchange:  it's a cookie-cutter TX "volleyball", which TxDOT favors as an interim method of connecting freeways in more outlying areas without massive movements from one facility to another.  They'll have a stack planned atop the volleyball but would only build it if and when overall traffic volume warrants, which may or may not occur (the volleyball at I-27 and Loop 289 north of downtown Lubbock has been there for decades with apparently no current plans to upgrade it).  Occasionally exceptionally dense development has occurred around a volleyball perimeter; this happened with the I-35/US 190 interchange in Temple -- one of the reasons that section of 190 freeway wasn't considered for part of the I-14 corridor.  I've been through the Sherman 75/82 interchange several times -- even back in the '80's when it was a simple diamond.  Currently, there's a few convenience stores and/or gas stations along the intersecting frontage roads; while a stack would certainly eliminate some of these, the present situation certainly wouldn't be prohibitive as regards interchange upgrades. 

If they eventually follow through with long term plans to extend the Dallas North Tollway up to US-75 North of Denison, just to the South of the Red River a new US-69/75 crossing will be needed over the Red River. The Grayson County Toll Road study has a path mapped out to US-75 just North of the FM-84 exit where US-75 bends from going North to Northwest. The extended DNT would dovetail into that bend in the road.

The current US-69/75 bridge crossing over the Red River is old and only 2 lanes in each direction. The bridges have a decent outer shoulder, but no inner shoulder at all. So the existing bridges do not live up to Interstate standards. An improved US-75 and an extended DNT would probably make it necessary to build a new Red River crossing with at least 4 lanes in both directions.

Whatever happens ODOT will end up under some pressure to improve US-75 through the Colbert area. The existing 2x2 configuration will act as a bottleneck to traffic coming to and from the Texas side of the river. Various other improvements to existing ramps and bridges (including a rail bridge going over US-69/75) would be necessary.

Hopefully ODOT's plans for the US-69/75 freeway upgrade in Calera up to Choctaw Casino provide room to expand the road to a 3x3 configuration. I think what they're planning is a regular 2x2 build.

Regarding the US-75/US-82 volleyball interchange in Denison, that's not going to be an easy or cheap thing to upgrade into a directional stack. Obviously the gas stations, mobile phone stores and what not hugging too close to the corners of the interchange would have to be cleared for directional ramps to be built. A bunch of the other entrance and exit ramps near the volleyball interchange would have to be reconfigured or even eliminated to make room for the high speed directional stack ramps.

Of course there is a likely chance TX DOT may choose to leave the US-75/US-82 interchange as a volleyball setup. The decision rests on just how much traffic needs to move between the two highways rather than just travel directly through the interchange. Most of the traffic heading up US-75 from Dallas is just going to keep driving North. Likewise, the East-West traffic on US-82 may be using that road to stay clear of Dallas. I can picture US-82 being a future regional Interstate corridor going from just East of Wichita Falls to Texarkana. There's even potential to go into Southern Arkansas to towns like El Dorado. US-82 even has a fairly new bridge crossing over the Mississippi River.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 20, 2020, 10:33:25 PM
I can picture US-82 being a future regional Interstate corridor going from just East of Wichita Falls to Texarkana. There's even potential to go into Southern Arkansas to towns like El Dorado. US-82 even has a fairly new bridge crossing over the Mississippi River.

Past Texarkana, US-82 will likely get the same treatment as US-412 in the northern part of the state.  Occasional passing lanes and city bypasses until funding comes through from somewhere to do 4 laning across the state, but without limited access.  At grade intersections and ramps only at major crossings.

Quote from: MikieTimT on April 21, 2020, 12:23:51 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 20, 2020, 10:33:25 PM
I can picture US-82 being a future regional Interstate corridor going from just East of Wichita Falls to Texarkana. There's even potential to go into Southern Arkansas to towns like El Dorado. US-82 even has a fairly new bridge crossing over the Mississippi River.

Past Texarkana, US-82 will likely get the same treatment as US-412 in the northern part of the state.  Occasional passing lanes and city bypasses until funding comes through from somewhere to do 4 laning across the state, but without limited access.  At grade intersections and ramps only at major crossings.

I think you can expect US82 to be upgraded significantly from I49 in Texarkana to I69 (wherever it runs) near ElDorado eventually. The only way it gets built past that is if I69 decides to change its route to follow 82 more or less.

As to US 82 in north Texas, Starting in the late seventies, 82 was routed on a new alignment a mile or so to the north between FM1417 to Whitesboro. Then around 2000 from SH121  east to just east of Honey Grove.  Then in the 2010's from SH121 to FM1417. Right now it is four lane divided from SH121 to Whitesboro.  They are widening the portion from 121 to East of Honey Grove to 4 lane divided.  It should be completed in a year or so.

This is very similar to what Oklahoma is doing with US 70 across southeast Oklahoma.

The pitfall of four lane divided is at work in Whitesboro.  There is a low speed limit AND a traffic signal at the high school.

US-82 in North Texas is kind of an interesting combination of different highway configurations, like 4-lane divided and Super 2 with limited access exits.

I think TX DOT needs to get on the ball about the segment of US-82 between Gainesville and Sherman. The section between Whitesboro and Sherman can be upgraded to Interstate standards without any difficulty. It looks like all the existing properties adjacent to the highway are set back far enough to allow room for new frontage roads. Hopefuly no jerk developers hug a bunch of crap right up on the ROW. The area between Whitesboro and Gainesville is a tougher nut to crack. Any new freeway there will have to be built on a new alignment. TX DOT has been studying US-82 relief route options around Gainesville. TX DOT will have to expand the scope of how US-82 should be improved in this area before it turns into a copy of US-380 between Denton and McKinney.

The segment of US-82 between Bonham and Honey Grove was a partially limited access Super 2. It will be interesting to see what TX DOT does with that segment in the 4-laning project. It may end up considerably closer to Interstate standards.

The 4-lane segment between Sherman and Bonham can be upgraded to Interstate standards, but there are a few properties along the way that may have to be bought and removed. East of Honey Grove and over to Paris I think any new US-82 freeway would probably have to be built on a new alignment. Loop 286 around Paris could be pretty difficult and expensive to turn into an Interstate quality loop.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 22, 2020, 10:24:05 PM
US-82 in North Texas is kind of an interesting combination of different highway configurations, like 4-lane divided and Super 2 with limited access exits.

I think TX DOT needs to get on the ball about the segment of US-82 between Gainesville and Sherman. The section between Whitesboro and Sherman can be upgraded to Interstate standards without any difficulty. It looks like all the existing properties adjacent to the highway are set back far enough to allow room for new frontage roads. Hopefuly no jerk developers hug a bunch of crap right up on the ROW. The area between Whitesboro and Gainesville is a tougher nut to crack. Any new freeway there will have to be built on a new alignment. TX DOT has been studying US-82 relief route options around Gainesville. TX DOT will have to expand the scope of how US-82 should be improved in this area before it turns into a copy of US-380 between Denton and McKinney.

The segment of US-82 between Bonham and Honey Grove was a partially limited access Super 2. It will be interesting to see what TX DOT does with that segment in the 4-laning project. It may end up considerably closer to Interstate standards.

The 4-lane segment between Sherman and Bonham can be upgraded to Interstate standards, but there are a few properties along the way that may have to be bought and removed. East of Honey Grove and over to Paris I think any new US-82 freeway would probably have to be built on a new alignment. Loop 286 around Paris could be pretty difficult and expensive to turn into an Interstate quality loop.

TxDOT would be better off using the southern half of the Paris loop. Coming from the west, have 82 veer SE a mile or so before it reaches 286. Much less development along that route. Have it veer NE at the junction with 271 and follow along south of the railroad and cross over to the existing road a couple of miles east.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
All this talk about improving US 82 is fine -- but the reality is that any such improvements would be "stand-alone" projects with limited regional benefit.  Even an Interstate-grade connector between I-35 and US 75 along US 82 wouldn't do much except provide an outer "shunt" between the two N-S routes (much of which is obviated by the I-35E/W split).  And a Paris extension of that concept would be effectively a single-ended enhanced corridor.  Unless US 82 is the northern section of a more comprehensive DFW outer loop (itself not a shabby idea!), by itself it doesn't do much except improve the lot of the current traffic pattern.  Now -- if I-grade development were extended east to intersect I-30 at some point, it might well serve as an alternative distributor from & to I-30, allowing that corridor's traffic a way to get past a Dallas chokepoint en route to the west side of the metro area (like the BNSF container-offload facility at Saginaw, north of Fort Worth).  And if ever a DFW-Amarillo Interstate-grade facility along US 287 becomes reality (one can only hope!), extending a similar facility along US 82 from Gainesville west to Henrietta could serve the same function from the opposite direction.   

Don't get me wrong -- there's nothing intrinsically wrong with improving an artery such as US 82 for the sake of local traffic efficiency & safety.  But full Interstate-grade improvements might well be gratuitous unless the route has some purpose beyond local service.  IMO, Job #1 for TxDOT should be improving US 75 through Sherman and Denison, where traffic counts are highest.  Any improvements to US 82 should come about within the context of local improvements until such time that west and/or east connections to other corridors are under consideration. 

There are multiple reasons that justify upgrading US-82 to Interstate quality through the Texoma region.

The direction of development in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex is North, toward that US-82 corridor. It's better to get ahead of that growth than be caught with the pants around the ankles, like TX DOT ended up being with US-380. I've said this many times before: they don't have to entirely build out a full fledged Interstate corridor. But they need to at least be acquiring the property to be able to do so later. One of the nice things about much of the US-287 corridor between Fort Worth and Amarillo is it can be upgraded to Interstate quality without much trouble. Some sections were even built with an Interstate sized median in the middle.

The Lake Texoma area is a very popular recreational area. The segment of US-82 nearest to Lake Texoma (the Whitesboro to Sherman segment) is the easiest to upgrade to Interstate standards. The casino business on the other side of the river is likely to boost traffic on the Gainesville to Sherman segment of US-82, especially as the Northern DFW suburbs continue to grow, as does tourism in Lake Texoma.

US-82 could grow into a very important East-West relief route for commercial traffic looking to bypass the busiest and most expensive areas of DFW. If an upgraded US-82 route went through Paris, TX and to I-30 it would bring a completed I-49 into play for a bigger picture Ports to Plains function. New Orleans and Southern Louisiana generate a lot of port business aside from the port activity in Texas.

Regarding regional outer loops for DFW, US-82 does not serve that function. The Collin County Outer Loop and Texas Loop 9 will serve those functions if/when they're built. An upgraded US-82 in the Texoma region would function a little like I-81 does for I-95 traffic on the Eastern Seaboard. I think US-281 could serve a similar relief route function for I-35 and traffic trying to bypass Austin and DFW.

I'm not all 100% gung-ho on upgrading US-82. If US-82 was fully upgraded to Interstate standards from Henrietta (US-287) to New Boston (I-30) it could draw a lot of long distance traffic away from Oklahoma's road system. Here in Oklahoma I think the OK-3 corridor should be a very high priority for route upgrades. If it was up to me I'd have a turnpike or freeway system running from the Texarkana area diagonally up to the OKC metro and then on up to Woodward and over to Boise City. An upgraded US-82 would take a good amount of wind out of the sails of upgrading OK-3.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 23, 2020, 11:24:54 PM
There are multiple reasons that justify upgrading US-82 to Interstate quality through the Texoma region.

The direction of development in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex is North, toward that US-82 corridor. It's better to get ahead of that growth than be caught with the pants around the ankles, like TX DOT ended up being with US-380. I've said this many times before: they don't have to entirely build out a full fledged Interstate corridor. But they need to at least be acquiring the property to be able to do so later. One of the nice things about much of the US-287 corridor between Fort Worth and Amarillo is it can be upgraded to Interstate quality without much trouble. Some sections were even built with an Interstate sized median in the middle.

The Lake Texoma area is a very popular recreational area. The segment of US-82 nearest to Lake Texoma (the Whitesboro to Sherman segment) is the easiest to upgrade to Interstate standards. The casino business on the other side of the river is likely to boost traffic on the Gainesville to Sherman segment of US-82, especially as the Northern DFW suburbs continue to grow, as does tourism in Lake Texoma.

US-82 could grow into a very important East-West relief route for commercial traffic looking to bypass the busiest and most expensive areas of DFW. If an upgraded US-82 route went through Paris, TX and to I-30 it would bring a completed I-49 into play for a bigger picture Ports to Plains function. New Orleans and Southern Louisiana generate a lot of port business aside from the port activity in Texas.

Regarding regional outer loops for DFW, US-82 does not serve that function. The Collin County Outer Loop and Texas Loop 9 will serve those functions if/when they're built. An upgraded US-82 in the Texoma region would function a little like I-81 does for I-95 traffic on the Eastern Seaboard. I think US-281 could serve a similar relief route function for I-35 and traffic trying to bypass Austin and DFW.

I'm not all 100% gung-ho on upgrading US-82. If US-82 was fully upgraded to Interstate standards from Henrietta (US-287) to New Boston (I-30) it could draw a lot of long distance traffic away from Oklahoma's road system. Here in Oklahoma I think the OK-3 corridor should be a very high priority for route upgrades. If it was up to me I'd have a turnpike or freeway system running from the Texarkana area diagonally up to the OKC metro and then on up to Woodward and over to Boise City. An upgraded US-82 would take a good amount of wind out of the sails of upgrading OK-3.

Given the precondition that connections to either I-30 to the east and/or a DFW-Amarillo Interstate (grade) route are made, US 82 is a prime candidate for an Interstate corridor -- the classic "relief route" diverting traffic around DFW on the north side.  And if the metro area looks like it's extending out that far, reserving ROW would be a fine idea -- let TxDOT "do their thing" and build widely separated frontage roads with an I-grade freeway coming along in time between Gainesville and Paris, with expandable 2-lane upgrades west and east of there:  Henrietta-Gainesville and Paris-New Boston.  Just so if the need arises, TxDOT isn't caught with their pants down.   

My McCurtain County extended family would absolutely love the idea of a continuous diagonal freeway/expressway as described above; they've been pushing for that for decades, along with the quickly abandoned idea of running I-49 down US 259 through Broken Bow (a concept that died in the late '80's).  But the idea of upgrading OK 3 has been promoted from the SE state corner for decades now -- with the concept that both Atoka and Ada would be bypassed and a "beeline" from Ada to OKC -- avoiding Shawnee -- was part of the package.   Needless to say, some of the same dynamics that have characterized the lack of action along the US 69 (I-45?) corridor have come into play here as well.  Some wise person once said "all politics is local"; that seems to hold particularly true within OK circles.     

I'm a little shocked that an upgraded Ada-to-OKC corridor hasn't been heavily promoted by the Chickasaw Nation. Their headquarters is in Ada, and better connectivity with OKC could only help them.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2020, 07:05:09 AM
I'm a little shocked that an upgraded Ada-to-OKC corridor hasn't been heavily promoted by the Chickasaw Nation. Their headquarters is in Ada, and better connectivity with OKC could only help them.

I-40 to US177 to OK3W is the natural route. Long term plans are to 4 lane all of it; however, give Oklahoma's glacial pace of road improvement, it will likely be 2040 before that happens.

US 59 was originally supposed to follow AR41 to DeQueen but temporarily routed through Texarkana because there was a bridge at Texarkana.  It initially followed the current TX8 from Linden to  Boston (New Boston) then followed US82 to Texarkana. Later it was shortened to skip New Boston and followed US67 directly to Texarkana. When Wright Patman Lake was built, it was redirected along SH47 from Linden to Atlanta to Texarkana (by then the District TXDOT office was in Atlanta).

As to I-49 in Oklahoma,  It would still be a fit to follow US59 to US271 then back to Ft Smith. That said, OK has as little money as Arkansas especially for Southeast Oklahoma.  This is the place where JFK came to open US259 where no real road had existed before. 

A good route for I49 would have been Texarkana to roughly Foreman AR to Idabel then roughly follow US259 to US59 Near Paige OK then to 271. (The distance would be little different than the proposed moutain route through Arkansas

It looks like I49 will stay entirely in Arkansas and probably will take 25 years or more to complete. I really don't see it taking any less anywhere else.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 20, 2020, 10:33:25 PM
If they eventually follow through with long term plans to extend the Dallas North Tollway up to US-75 North of Denison, just to the South of the Red River a new US-69/75 crossing will be needed over the Red River. The Grayson County Toll Road study has a path mapped out to US-75 just North of the FM-84 exit where US-75 bends from going North to Northwest. The extended DNT would dovetail into that bend in the road.

The current US-69/75 bridge crossing over the Red River is old and only 2 lanes in each direction. The bridges have a decent outer shoulder, but no inner shoulder at all. So the existing bridges do not live up to Interstate standards. An improved US-75 and an extended DNT would probably make it necessary to build a new Red River crossing with at least 4 lanes in both directions.

Whatever happens ODOT will end up under some pressure to improve US-75 through the Colbert area. The existing 2x2 configuration will act as a bottleneck to traffic coming to and from the Texas side of the river. Various other improvements to existing ramps and bridges (including a rail bridge going over US-69/75) would be necessary.

Hopefully ODOT's plans for the US-69/75 freeway upgrade in Calera up to Choctaw Casino provide room to expand the road to a 3x3 configuration. I think what they're planning is a regular 2x2 build.

Regarding the US-75/US-82 volleyball interchange in Denison, that's not going to be an easy or cheap thing to upgrade into a directional stack. Obviously the gas stations, mobile phone stores and what not hugging too close to the corners of the interchange would have to be cleared for directional ramps to be built. A bunch of the other entrance and exit ramps near the volleyball interchange would have to be reconfigured or even eliminated to make room for the high speed directional stack ramps.

Of course there is a likely chance TX DOT may choose to leave the US-75/US-82 interchange as a volleyball setup. The decision rests on just how much traffic needs to move between the two highways rather than just travel directly through the interchange. Most of the traffic heading up US-75 from Dallas is just going to keep driving North. Likewise, the East-West traffic on US-82 may be using that road to stay clear of Dallas. I can picture US-82 being a future regional Interstate corridor going from just East of Wichita Falls to Texarkana. There's even potential to go into Southern Arkansas to towns like El Dorado. US-82 even has a fairly new bridge crossing over the Mississippi River.

I am very familiar with the 75/82 volleyball. I agree that TXDOT will leave it as is for now, but the short ramps on and off 82 need to be addressed. Traffic movement from westbound 82 to northbound 75 is a nightmare as vehicles have about 100 feet to change lanes.

If TxDOT got creative with pillar placement it could spare the businesses there with a stack, but that means getting vertical farther out. That will make it expensive. A stack there would probably require both highways to gain interstate status.

Quote from: bwana39 on April 24, 2020, 05:08:09 PM
US 59 was originally supposed to follow AR41 to DeQueen but temporarily routed through Texarkana because there was a bridge at Texarkana.  It initially followed the current TX8 from Linden to  Boston (New Boston) then followed US82 to Texarkana. Later it was shortened to skip New Boston and followed US67 directly to Texarkana. When Wright Patman Lake was built, it was redirected along SH47 from Linden to Atlanta to Texarkana (by then the District TXDOT office was in Atlanta).

As to I-49 in Oklahoma,  It would still be a fit to follow US59 to US271 then back to Ft Smith. That said, OK has as little money as Arkansas especially for Southeast Oklahoma.  This is the place where JFK came to open US259 where no real road had existed before. 

A good route for I49 would have been Texarkana to roughly Foreman AR to Idabel then roughly follow US259 to US59 Near Paige OK then to 271. (The distance would be little different than the proposed moutain route through Arkansas

It looks like I49 will stay entirely in Arkansas and probably will take 25 years or more to complete. I really don't see it taking any less anywhere else.

At this point, the die has essentially been cast; I-49 will basically follow US 71 via a bit east of DeQueen and Mena, then sit atop that highway over the Y City "summit", an all-AR alignment.  It'll likely take a tad short of forever X-(, but if and when it finally happens, that's where it'll occur. 

Quote from: bwana39 on April 24, 2020, 05:08:09 PM
US 59 was originally supposed to follow AR41 to DeQueen but temporarily routed through Texarkana because there was a bridge at Texarkana.  It initially followed the current TX8 from Linden to  Boston (New Boston) then followed US82 to Texarkana. Later it was shortened to skip New Boston and followed US67 directly to Texarkana. When Wright Patman Lake was built, it was redirected along SH47 from Linden to Atlanta to Texarkana (by then the District TXDOT office was in Atlanta).

As to I-49 in Oklahoma,  It would still be a fit to follow US59 to US271 then back to Ft Smith. That said, OK has as little money as Arkansas especially for Southeast Oklahoma.  This is the place where JFK came to open US259 where no real road had existed before. 

A good route for I49 would have been Texarkana to roughly Foreman AR to Idabel then roughly follow US259 to US59 Near Paige OK then to 271. (The distance would be little different than the proposed moutain route through Arkansas

It looks like I49 will stay entirely in Arkansas and probably will take 25 years or more to complete. I really don't see it taking any less anywhere else.

I saw a map a while back showing 49 will swing into Texas north of Texakana, re-entering Arkansas near Ashdown.  Remember: it all but does already.

Quote from: US71 on April 25, 2020, 10:35:07 AM

Quote from: bwana39 on April 24, 2020, 05:08:09 PM
US 59 was originally supposed to follow AR41 to DeQueen but temporarily routed through Texarkana because there was a bridge at Texarkana.  It initially followed the current TX8 from Linden to  Boston (New Boston) then followed US82 to Texarkana. Later it was shortened to skip New Boston and followed US67 directly to Texarkana. When Wright Patman Lake was built, it was redirected along SH47 from Linden to Atlanta to Texarkana (by then the District TXDOT office was in Atlanta).

As to I-49 in Oklahoma,  It would still be a fit to follow US59 to US271 then back to Ft Smith. That said, OK has as little money as Arkansas especially for Southeast Oklahoma.  This is the place where JFK came to open US259 where no real road had existed before. 

A good route for I49 would have been Texarkana to roughly Foreman AR to Idabel then roughly follow US259 to US59 Near Paige OK then to 271. (The distance would be little different than the proposed moutain route through Arkansas

It looks like I49 will stay entirely in Arkansas and probably will take 25 years or more to complete. I really don't see it taking any less anywhere else.

I saw a map a while back showing 49 will swing into Texas north of Texakana, re-entering Arkansas near Ashdown.  Remember: it all but does already.

And from the scuttlebutt I've heard, TxDOT is taking lead on the design of the I-49 Red River bridge.  No word on bridge format as of yet (I'd guess either a standard girder/prestressed concrete or a 4-lane+shoulders/median through truss). 

Quote from: sparker on April 25, 2020, 06:47:13 PM
And from the scuttlebutt I've heard, TxDOT is taking lead on the design of the I-49 Red River bridge.  No word on bridge format as of yet (I'd guess either a standard girder/prestressed concrete or a 4-lane+shoulders/median through truss).

I go with a standard girder design given the downstream bridges use it.

Quote from: sparker on April 25, 2020, 06:47:13 PM

Quote from: US71 on April 25, 2020, 10:35:07 AM

Quote from: bwana39 on April 24, 2020, 05:08:09 PM
US 59 was originally supposed to follow AR41 to DeQueen but temporarily routed through Texarkana because there was a bridge at Texarkana.  It initially followed the current TX8 from Linden to  Boston (New Boston) then followed US82 to Texarkana. Later it was shortened to skip New Boston and followed US67 directly to Texarkana. When Wright Patman Lake was built, it was redirected along SH47 from Linden to Atlanta to Texarkana (by then the District TXDOT office was in Atlanta).

As to I-49 in Oklahoma,  It would still be a fit to follow US59 to US271 then back to Ft Smith. That said, OK has as little money as Arkansas especially for Southeast Oklahoma.  This is the place where JFK came to open US259 where no real road had existed before. 

A good route for I49 would have been Texarkana to roughly Foreman AR to Idabel then roughly follow US259 to US59 Near Paige OK then to 271. (The distance would be little different than the proposed moutain route through Arkansas

It looks like I49 will stay entirely in Arkansas and probably will take 25 years or more to complete. I really don't see it taking any less anywhere else.

I saw a map a while back showing 49 will swing into Texas north of Texakana, re-entering Arkansas near Ashdown.  Remember: it all but does already.

And from the scuttlebutt I've heard, TxDOT is taking lead on the design of the I-49 Red River bridge.  No word on bridge format as of yet (I'd guess either a standard girder/prestressed concrete or a 4-lane+shoulders/median through truss).

I think a girder type bridge. TXDOT is just finishing up the crossing on US259 and it is that type. The bridges on US 71 are that type. So is the I30 bridge(s) built in 2017 by ARDOT. No reason to think these would be any other type.  I don't think a truss bridge has been built on a highway in Texas or Arkansas since the sixties, Maybe earlier.

^^^^ why are Truss style bridges not built anymore?

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 27, 2020, 09:02:42 PM
^^^^ why are Truss style bridges not built anymore?

Cost, both to build and to maintain.  Say "truss bridge" at NYSDOT and people start groaning.

^ Plus truss bridges have less redundancy/more issues with being fracture critical.

^^^  In retrospect, the only Interstate truss bridge that seems to have been deployed in the last quarter-century was the I-72 Mississippi River bridge at Hannibal, MO.  With cable-stay being the current favorite for longer spans and prestressed girder bridges for shorter/sectional spans, trusses seem to have fallen out of favor.  Oregon DOT replaced the Santiam River twin trusses on I-5 with a girder structure back in the early '90's, and CA did the same with the Cottonwood Creek bridges between Red Bluff and Redding on that same Interstate.  There are some remaining in WA, including the Columbia River I-90 crossing and half of the I-82 bridge over that river into OR, as well as a few along I-5.  Painted WashDOT green, they're actually pretty attractive (although it's likely the green masks any rust!).

Quote from: sparker on April 27, 2020, 09:55:17 PM
^^^  In retrospect, the only Interstate truss bridge that seems to have been deployed in the last quarter-century was the I-72 Mississippi River bridge at Hannibal, MO.  With cable-stay being the current favorite for longer spans and prestressed girder bridges for shorter/sectional spans, trusses seem to have fallen out of favor.  Oregon DOT replaced the Santiam River twin trusses on I-5 with a girder structure back in the early '90's, and CA did the same with the Cottonwood Creek bridges between Red Bluff and Redding on that same Interstate.  There are some remaining in WA, including the Columbia River I-90 crossing and half of the I-82 bridge over that river into OR, as well as a few along I-5.  Painted WashDOT green, they're actually pretty attractive (although it's likely the green masks any rust!).

The Columbia has some great truss bridges on US highways, 101,  the Megler-Astoria cantilever truss bridge, US 197, 97, and 395/I-82. 

On I-5 in 2013 at the Skagit River in Burlington, the lanes were closed because an over-height truck hitting the bridge cross-member resulted in the bridge collapsing.  "This steel through-truss bridge had a "fracture-critical" design with non-redundant load-bearing beams and joints that were each essential to the whole structure staying intact. An initial failure (perhaps by cracking) of a single essential part can sometimes overload other parts and make them fail, which quickly triggers a chain reaction of even more failures and causes the entire bridge span to collapse."

The only reason why Truss Bridges as well as Cantilever Bridges as well as Arch Bridges are not constructed so much any more is be cause of current trends.

I have yet to encounter a freight rail bridge that is the fancy cable stayed bridge or fancy suspension bridge that can be seen from very far away. They like to light up these fancy cable stayed bridges and these fancy suspension bridges at night also. 

While they did replace the metal Purcell Lexington Bridge in Oklahoma, on the basis of rewelding it,

Quite recently, there is now a rail truss bridge some where going over Interstate 35. I doubt that Oklahoma prefers Truss Bridges.

Despite the maintenance requirement of Truss Bridges, there must be some essential advantage to building them. Be cause they just did.

And some where else on Interstate 35 has a bridge containing in addition to the visible metal beams, also has V or Triangle Shaped metal bridge piers.

Do they need to be rewelded also?

Quote from: sparker on April 27, 2020, 09:55:17 PM
^^^  In retrospect, the only Interstate truss bridge that seems to have been deployed in the last quarter-century was the I-72 Mississippi River bridge at Hannibal, MO.

Nitpick:  The superstructure replacement on the WB I-70/Blanchette Bridge over the Missouri River at St. Charles, MO was a truss, but that was due to wanting to match the design of the historic superstructure.

Quote from: Revive 755 on April 28, 2020, 10:12:02 PM

Quote from: sparker on April 27, 2020, 09:55:17 PM
^^^  In retrospect, the only Interstate truss bridge that seems to have been deployed in the last quarter-century was the I-72 Mississippi River bridge at Hannibal, MO.

Nitpick:  The superstructure replacement on the WB I-70/Blanchette Bridge over the Missouri River at St. Charles, MO was a truss, but that was due to wanting to match the design of the historic superstructure.

Technically a "correct correction".  I should have specified a "new" Interstate bridge -- as opposed to a replacement for an existing structure. 

Interstate 235:

https://www.google.com/maps/search/I-35+Oklahoma+Rail+Truss+Bridge/@35.5208598,-97.5162306,17z

https://www.google.com/maps/search/I-35+Oklahoma+Rail+Truss+Bridge/@35.5208598,-97.5162306,284m/data=!3m1!1e3

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Railroad+bridge/@35.5217571,-97.5193993,284m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m8!1m2!2m1!1sI-35+Oklahoma+Rail+Truss+Bridge!3m4!1s0x87b219f3d4e9c54b:0xca7aaf46bc9c7c50!8m2!3d35.5217571!4d-97.5172106

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5225018,-97.5174782,3a,15.3y,160.3h,87.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sdAIeLTy-vzQqwNdSTyOsOw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DdAIeLTy-vzQqwNdSTyOsOw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D356.1136%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Quote from: In_Correct on April 29, 2020, 05:27:36 AM

Interstate 235:

https://www.google.com/maps/search/I-35+Oklahoma+Rail+Truss+Bridge/@35.5208598,-97.5162306,17z

https://www.google.com/maps/search/I-35+Oklahoma+Rail+Truss+Bridge/@35.5208598,-97.5162306,284m/data=!3m1!1e3

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Railroad+bridge/@35.5217571,-97.5193993,284m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m8!1m2!2m1!1sI-35+Oklahoma+Rail+Truss+Bridge!3m4!1s0x87b219f3d4e9c54b:0xca7aaf46bc9c7c50!8m2!3d35.5217571!4d-97.5172106

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5225018,-97.5174782,3a,15.3y,160.3h,87.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sdAIeLTy-vzQqwNdSTyOsOw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DdAIeLTy-vzQqwNdSTyOsOw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D356.1136%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Railroad trusses have never gone "out of style"; they're specifically designed to carry extremely heavy loads for extended periods of time (i.e. if a train needs to be "parked" over a bridge).  Pretty much every major RR serving CA employed trusses; there are several on UP's former SP "Coast Line" between L.A. and San Jose, presently the Amtrak "Coast Starlight" route.  But, as with the instances on I-5, the farther north one goes, the more RR truss bridges are seen.  Actually, in N CA there are two not immediately apparent truss bridges -- the first one, on I-5, is the Pit River bridge over Shasta Lake; I-5 rides on the top of the truss while the UP tracks sit below it through the truss structure.  The second example is on CA 70 northeast of the CA 191 junction; like the I-5/UP example, it too features a UP line (this time former Western Pacific) through the truss with the roadway atop the structure.  It was constructed as part of the 1963 bypass of Oroville Lake, with both the highway (at that time Alternate US 40) and RR realigned around the lake's perimeter pending the 1965 completion of Oroville Dam. 

But besides these two relative oddities, there are numerous "normal" through RR trusses north of Sacramento; the Amtrak line from that city north to Portland features at least a half-dozen along its length, several in the Sacramento River Canyon between Redding and Mt. Shasta.

I would expect the I-49 bridge over the Red River from Texas back into Arkansas to be a "plain" design. It doesn't need any more clearance that just the extreme up and down cycles of the river itself. There isn't any barge traffic on that part of the river.

Barge traffic on the Red River goes no farther North than Shreveport. I don't know if the project is funded but the Army Corps of Engineers does have plans on the books to install locks and do other improvements to the Red River to allow barge traffic to reach the Texarkana area.

If the Red River is made navigable by barges up to the Texarkana area I would bet the last inland port would go no farther North than the US-82 crossing East of Texarkana. I sure wouldn't expect the navigable channel to reach as far as the US-71 crossing North of Texarkana. That would translate to a decent number of bridges needing replacement.

A couple of years ago there was a newspaper article discussing the possibility of making the Red River navigable all the way to Denison Dam. It's probably pure speculation.

But if there's anything to it at all, the span of this bridge will have to take it into account. Be a shame to build a bridge and have to tear it down 10-15 years later.

Quote from: Road Hog on April 29, 2020, 08:47:43 PM
A couple of years ago there was a newspaper article discussing the possibility of making the Red River navigable all the way to Denison Dam. It's probably pure speculation.

But if there's anything to it at all, the span of this bridge will have to take it into account. Be a shame to build a bridge and have to tear it down 10-15 years later.

If such plans became reality, there would be at least six bridges upstream from the planned I-49 crossing that would have to be replaced by high-level structures.  The only reason for dredging the Red River to Denison would be if a DFW-serving "inland port" were planned for the Denison area (putting a canal/lock system bypassing the dam would likely be prohibitively expensive).  Nevertheless, with replacement bridges in six locations adding to the cost of such a project, it's probably permanently "back-burnered" if not completely dropped.  If DFW was actually adjacent to the river rather than 70 miles south, some sort of port facility would already be in place; but it's already a major distribution hub because of its siting at both rail and roadway junctions; adding barge traffic seventy miles distant from the metro hub  -- and requiring a secondary haulage leg -- to that mix likely wouldn't add substantial value to its current status.  An accurate and realistic C/B analysis would almost certainly affirm that conclusion; if I were TxDOT, I wouldn't be too concerned about providing high clearance for I-49 (or even the US 69/75 bridge)     

Quote from: sparker on April 30, 2020, 04:54:18 AM

Quote from: Road Hog on April 29, 2020, 08:47:43 PM
A couple of years ago there was a newspaper article discussing the possibility of making the Red River navigable all the way to Denison Dam. It’s probably pure speculation.

But if there’s anything to it at all, the span of this bridge will have to take it into account. Be a shame to build a bridge and have to tear it down 10-15 years later.

If such plans became reality, there would be at least six bridges upstream from the planned I-49 crossing that would have to be replaced by high-level structures.  The only reason for dredging the Red River to Denison would be if a DFW-serving "inland port" were planned for the Denison area (putting a canal/lock system bypassing the dam would likely be prohibitively expensive).  Nevertheless, with replacement bridges in six locations adding to the cost of such a project, it's probably permanently "back-burnered" if not completely dropped.  If DFW was actually adjacent to the river rather than 70 miles south, some sort of port facility would already be in place; but it's already a major distribution hub because of its siting at both rail and roadway junctions; adding barge traffic seventy miles distant from the metro hub  -- and requiring a secondary haulage leg -- to that mix likely wouldn't add substantial value to its current status.  An accurate and realistic C/B analysis would almost certainly affirm that conclusion; if I were TxDOT, I wouldn't be too concerned about providing high clearance for I-49 (or even the US 69/75 bridge)   

Most if not all of the bridges past the Arkansas / Louisiana line are too low for routine barge traffic.  Especially the new KCS bridge North of Texarkana.  Downstream is as big a deterrent as upstream.

Here's an article from March, 2019 about extending the barge channel up to Texarakana.
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/mar/10/barges-on-red-found-feasible-20190310/

The plan illustrated in the article shows the barge channel system going as far as the US-71 crossing North of Texarkana.

This article says there is indeed talk of extending the barge channel to Denison. No feasibility studies have been completed. I'm not sure how a barge channel along the TX/OK border to Denison can work. The Red River is pretty shallow and has a very crooked, swirly path. There's lots of sandbars and disconnected crescent shaped ponds that were formerly part of the river. If a pilot channel were built from Texarakana to Denison I would expect a considerably more straight path would be dredged.

There is a lot of environmental risk in altering a river system. Much of the coastal erosion taking place in Louisiana is the result of human intervention against river flow. We dredged the Mississippi River deeper. Over 100 years ago we removed the Great Red River Raft logjam. That allowed far more of Red River waters to flow direct into the Mississippi than into the Atchafalaya. The various dams and levees built in the following decades greatly reduced the amount of fresh water flowing through the swamp and marsh lands. Salt water is able to intrude and eventually kill the plant life helping hold dry and wetlands in place.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 30, 2020, 10:22:30 AM
Here's an article from March, 2019 about extending the barge channel up to Texarakana.
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/mar/10/barges-on-red-found-feasible-20190310/

The plan illustrated in the article shows the barge channel system going as far as the US-71 crossing North of Texarkana.

This article says there is indeed talk of extending the barge channel to Denison. No feasibility studies have been completed. I'm not sure how a barge channel along the TX/OK border to Denison can work. The Red River is pretty shallow and has a very crooked, swirly path. There's lots of sandbars and disconnected crescent shaped ponds that were formerly part of the river. If a pilot channel were built from Texarakana to Denison I would expect a considerably more straight path would be dredged.

There is a lot of environmental risk in altering a river system. Much of the coastal erosion taking place in Louisiana is the result of human intervention against river flow. We dredged the Mississippi River deeper. Over 100 years ago we removed the Great Red River Raft logjam. That allowed far more of Red River waters to flow direct into the Mississippi than into the Atchafalaya. The various dams and levees built in the following decades greatly reduced the amount of fresh water flowing through the swamp and marsh lands. Salt water is able to intrude and eventually kill the plant life helping hold dry and wetlands in place.

+1
What a stupid idea.  I can't begin to imagine the screams to release water from Lake Texoma to ensure adequate water for barge traffic if it was ever built. 

Quote from: Rothman on April 27, 2020, 09:22:04 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 27, 2020, 09:02:42 PM
^^^^ why are Truss style bridges not built anymore?

Cost, both to build and to maintain.  Say "truss bridge"at NYSDOT to any anyone who works at or in partnership with any DOT and people start groaning.

Edited for accuracy.

Just the painting alone really adds up.

Quote from: kphoger on April 30, 2020, 05:24:42 PM

Quote from: Rothman on April 27, 2020, 09:22:04 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 27, 2020, 09:02:42 PM
^^^^ why are Truss style bridges not built anymore?

Cost, both to build and to maintain.  Say "truss bridge"at NYSDOT to any anyone who works at or in partnership with any DOT and people start groaning.

Edited for accuracy.

Just the painting alone really adds up.

Rust-Oleum must be making their nut with WashDOT and BNSF alone (and those green bridges are mighty purty!).

Back when Jim Chapman was Congressman for Northeast Texas, he had this pipe dream of "the Daingerfield Reach". Basically to make Cypress Bayou / Cypress Creek navigable from the Red River (near Shreveport) through the west end of Lake -O-the-Pines.  This was about the same length as to Index and it also was far too expensive. (Even not considering the sizeable opposition from the Caddo Lake environmental groups.) 

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 30, 2020, 10:22:30 AM
Here's an article from March, 2019 about extending the barge channel up to Texarakana.
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/mar/10/barges-on-red-found-feasible-20190310/

The plan illustrated in the article shows the barge channel system going as far as the US-71 crossing North of Texarkana.

This article says there is indeed talk of extending the barge channel to Denison. No feasibility studies have been completed. I'm not sure how a barge channel along the TX/OK border to Denison can work. The Red River is pretty shallow and has a very crooked, swirly path. There's lots of sandbars and disconnected crescent shaped ponds that were formerly part of the river. If a pilot channel were built from Texarakana to Denison I would expect a considerably more straight path would be dredged.

There is a lot of environmental risk in altering a river system. Much of the coastal erosion taking place in Louisiana is the result of human intervention against river flow. We dredged the Mississippi River deeper. Over 100 years ago we removed the Great Red River Raft logjam. That allowed far more of Red River waters to flow direct into the Mississippi than into the Atchafalaya. The various dams and levees built in the following decades greatly reduced the amount of fresh water flowing through the swamp and marsh lands. Salt water is able to intrude and eventually kill the plant life helping hold dry and wetlands in place.

May that Red River barge idea die the quiet death a hideous waste of money like that deserves.

What would such barges even carry?  There's nothing being produced in such quantity in the Texarkana region that it's in need of goddamn barges to move it.

Maybe the idea is stuff could be brought by truck or rail to Texarkana and shipped down the Red on a barge? Or vice-versa?

In any case, the difficulty that you'd run into above Texarkana is that the river channel is entirely in Oklahoma, which would derive next to zero benefit from a navigable river channel. I don't think a port serving Durant would justify the trouble.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 04, 2020, 04:36:07 PM
May that Red River barge idea die the quiet death a hideous waste of money like that deserves.

What would such barges even carry?  There's nothing being produced in such quantity in the Texarkana region that it's in need of goddamn barges to move it.

About the only salient need for barge traffic at all is to move bulk cargo to either a central collection point along a waterway or an export location -- which is the reason for all the offloading facilities lining the Mississippi from Baton Rouge all the way down the river through New Orleans and into Plaquemine Parish.   Barges save about 30% over all-rail transport -- but the trick is to get the cargo to an appropriate waterway.  Grain accounts for most of the barge traffic for most of the Missouri/Mississippi watershed; the Mississippi River export traffic via LA is both milled flour (primarily from the Twin Cities) and unmilled grain; coming from the Missouri channel it's mostly of the unmilled variety bulk-loaded along that river (although below KC there is a small amount of flour traffic from the KC area).  And not all the river traffic is destined for export; there is more than a bit of intercity movement to downriver mills.

The problem is that barge movement is slow; most export contracts are prearranged and longer-term; the longer delivery schedules are calculated into those agreements.  Contrast that with the needs of domestic food and beverage processors (especially large regional corporate breweries), who depend upon timely and, in some cases, daily deliveries of these bulk cargoes.  For that, rail or truck is optimal.  Wheat and corn -- and in some cases barley and rye -- generally are transported by rail, with the processing facilities located along trackage.  Smaller-quantity grains (barley, specialty rices, etc.) generally are the parvenu of trucks (although rail hopper cars loaded with these are not unheard of, particularly with large commercial bakeries or those regional breweries).  While both TX and OK have significant grain production, that is located either in central TX or the TX Panhandle, or in the case of OK along the KS state line or along the western line shared with TX.  But most of the arable lands in those two states are already in production, and the transport system for that cargo is well-established.  It's highly unlikely that there would be enough additional production capacity out of OK and TX to warrant the expense of attempting to expand the grain barge system to the Red River; unlike the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, which bisect the grain-growing area, the Red River above Lake Texoma isn't of sufficient flow to support a dredged operation to bring the barges to that target area.  It would have to be brought in by rail or truck, which, cost-wise, would defeat the purposes of the economics of export grain, which pay less pound for pound than domestic processing.  In short, there's no compelling reason to bring a barge system inland as far as the cited plans projected; the math just isn't there.  Even an extension to Texarkana is speculative -- but perhaps hardwood lumber from the Ouachitas might be added to the mix to make such an extension feasible; white oak from that area is a demand item for overseas furniture producers (at least according to my Broken Bow relatives; my grandfather worked as a manager for Dierks' old Broken Bow plant, and my father briefly worked in their Valliant plant as a lumber grader before moving to California in the late '30's).  Bottom line -- I don't think that I-49 or any other bridge between Texarkana and Denison will need to be raised/replaced in the foreseeable future.         

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 04, 2020, 06:54:07 PM
Maybe the idea is stuff could be brought by truck or rail to Texarkana and shipped down the Red on a barge? Or vice-versa?

In any case, the difficulty that you'd run into above Texarkana is that the river channel is entirely in Oklahoma, which would derive next to zero benefit from a navigable river channel. I don't think a port serving Durant would justify the trouble.

Don't let the city fathers hear about this. Maybe then they could actually justify the local industrial park :)

Quote from: sparker on May 04, 2020, 09:41:31 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 04, 2020, 04:36:07 PM
May that Red River barge idea die the quiet death a hideous waste of money like that deserves.

What would such barges even carry?  There's nothing being produced in such quantity in the Texarkana region that it's in need of goddamn barges to move it.

About the only salient need for barge traffic at all is to move bulk cargo to either a central collection point along a waterway or an export location -- which is the reason for all the offloading facilities lining the Mississippi from Baton Rouge all the way down the river through New Orleans and into Plaquemine Parish.   Barges save about 30% over all-rail transport -- but the trick is to get the cargo to an appropriate waterway.  Grain accounts for most of the barge traffic for most of the Missouri/Mississippi watershed; the Mississippi River export traffic via LA is both milled flour (primarily from the Twin Cities) and unmilled grain; coming from the Missouri channel it's mostly of the unmilled variety bulk-loaded along that river (although below KC there is a small amount of flour traffic from the KC area).  And not all the river traffic is destined for export; there is more than a bit of intercity movement to downriver mills.

The problem is that barge movement is slow; most export contracts are prearranged and longer-term; the longer delivery schedules are calculated into those agreements.  Contrast that with the needs of domestic food and beverage processors (especially large regional corporate breweries), who depend upon timely and, in some cases, daily deliveries of these bulk cargoes.  For that, rail or truck is optimal.  Wheat and corn -- and in some cases barley and rye -- generally are transported by rail, with the processing facilities located along trackage.  Smaller-quantity grains (barley, specialty rices, etc.) generally are the parvenu of trucks (although rail hopper cars loaded with these are not unheard of, particularly with large commercial bakeries or those regional breweries).  While both TX and OK have significant grain production, that is located either in central TX or the TX Panhandle, or in the case of OK along the KS state line or along the western line shared with TX.  But most of the arable lands in those two states are already in production, and the transport system for that cargo is well-established.  It's highly unlikely that there would be enough additional production capacity out of OK and TX to warrant the expense of attempting to expand the grain barge system to the Red River; unlike the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, which bisect the grain-growing area, the Red River above Lake Texoma isn't of sufficient flow to support a dredged operation to bring the barges to that target area.  It would have to be brought in by rail or truck, which, cost-wise, would defeat the purposes of the economics of export grain, which pay less pound for pound than domestic processing.  In short, there's no compelling reason to bring a barge system inland as far as the cited plans projected; the math just isn't there.  Even an extension to Texarkana is speculative -- but perhaps hardwood lumber from the Ouachitas might be added to the mix to make such an extension feasible; white oak from that area is a demand item for overseas furniture producers (at least according to my Broken Bow relatives; my grandfather worked as a manager for Dierks' old Broken Bow plant, and my father briefly worked in their Valliant plant as a lumber grader before moving to California in the late '30's).  Bottom line -- I don't think that I-49 or any other bridge between Texarkana and Denison will need to be raised/replaced in the foreseeable future.       

Hardwood timber in OK /AR?  The vast majority of the harvestable timber in either one today is plantation planted pine. What little hardwood  there is very slow growth stuff. (Think 100 years from seedling to harvest. )  All of the old growth hardwood was cut before WWII and what replaced it was either planted pine or scrubby hardwood regrowth.  Even 50 miles further south, the hardwood regrowth to harvest is 35 years or so.

Quote from: rte66man on May 05, 2020, 11:13:03 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 04, 2020, 06:54:07 PM
Maybe the idea is stuff could be brought by truck or rail to Texarkana and shipped down the Red on a barge? Or vice-versa?

In any case, the difficulty that you'd run into above Texarkana is that the river channel is entirely in Oklahoma, which would derive next to zero benefit from a navigable river channel. I don't think a port serving Durant would justify the trouble.

Don't let the city fathers hear about this. Maybe then they could actually justify the local industrial park :)

The part from the Index north of Texarkana to the OK state line is likewise all Arkansas.     

Texas has ZERO access to the river except some places where the river route has changed and on lake Texoma. US 71 sits at the corner of the land border and the river north of Texarkana.

Myself, I simply do not see the sensibility for making the Red Navigable farther North.

Quote from: bwana39 on May 05, 2020, 12:30:13 PM
Hardwood timber in OK /AR?  The vast majority of the harvestable timber in either one today is plantation planted pine. What little hardwood  there is very slow growth stuff. (Think 100 years from seedling to harvest. )  All of the old growth hardwood was cut before WWII and what replaced it was either planted pine or scrubby hardwood regrowth.  Even 50 miles further south, the hardwood regrowth to harvest is 35 years or so.

According to my McCurtain County relatives it's true that most of the hardwood within a 25-mile radius of Broken Bow or Idabel was harvested clean by the 1970's -- but they're still hauling wood in from north on the flanks of Blue Mountain up on US 259 -- not in the quantities seen 40-50 years ago, but still enough to make the operation profitable.  But Weyerhaeuser, who bought out Dierks, the old regional lumber "kings", back in the '60's, has centralized their hardwood operation (again, concentrating on white oak, which is apparently their most profitable wood variety) with extensive plantation operations between Dierks (gee, I wonder where the town name came from!) and Murfreesboro, AR (they've owned or leased that land for about a century).  Having dealt with oak suppliers in my own business (loudspeakers), I've been told that while it's true that there's a "waiting time" from planting to harvest -- actually calculated at about 28 years for California red oak and a bit more for the harder white variety -- Weyerhaeuser, being one of the "800-pound-gorillas" of the industry, has the resources and the available acreage to keep a rotating supply source, where successive plots are harvested and replanted on about a 2-3 year cycle, and for the next cycle moving on to another mature plot for harvest, repeating the process. 

But it's unlikely much of that would even be considered for barge traffic -- the company, and Dierks before it, has their own railroad running from Valliant, OK, where it services their mill and also interchanges traffic with BNSF there, east through Broken Bow to De Queen, where product is switched to their long-time partner Kansas City Southern.  The railroad -- the Texas, Oklahoma, and Eastern, is registered as a common carrier (it also serves the Tyson plant in Broken Bow), even though 80% of its carloads are Weyerhaeuser input or output.  The line exends east to Dierks and then turns southeast to Hope, AR, where it services yet another mill and interchanges traffic with UP.  But most of the raw lumber and finished wood product from the mills goes to De Queen and is transferred to KCS which moves it to KC or Shreveport for wider distribution (or even export via Port Arthur, TX).  This arrangement has been in place for as long as Dierks and its successor have been harvesting lumber from the Ouachita Mountains; the chances that it'll change to barge for the marginal cost difference  -- as well as the disruption of its existing distribution chain -- are vanishingly slim.   

Well, Louisiana got on board with the Red River navigation study as well with some of their own money, but they are approaching it as much from a flood control perspective as much as additional river traffic through their ports.  And the last study found that there was a favorable cost to benefit ratio unlike the last time it was studied, so the Corps of Engineers getting funding for a complete analysis is the next step.  Still unlikely to happen anytime in the next 20 years, but moving forward nonetheless.

https://bossierpress.com/parish-commits-to-study-about-red-river-flooding-navigability-into-arkansas/ (https://bossierpress.com/parish-commits-to-study-about-red-river-flooding-navigability-into-arkansas/)

Quote from: MikieTimT on May 06, 2020, 10:19:43 AM
Well, Louisiana got on board with the Red River navigation study as well with some of their own money, but they are approaching it as much from a flood control perspective as much as additional river traffic through their ports.  And the last study found that there was a favorable cost to benefit ratio unlike the last time it was studied, so the Corps of Engineers getting funding for a complete analysis is the next step.  Still unlikely to happen anytime in the next 20 years, but moving forward nonetheless.

https://bossierpress.com/parish-commits-to-study-about-red-river-flooding-navigability-into-arkansas/ (https://bossierpress.com/parish-commits-to-study-about-red-river-flooding-navigability-into-arkansas/)

Sounds like this study is limited to projects within AR, so the concept west from there toward Texoma appears to be at best shelved for the present -- which is good news for (a) rational folks everywhere and (b) TX and OK, which won't be faced with the prospect of having to reconstruct the bridges along that waterway. 

Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2020, 05:27:59 PM
that highway over the Y City "summit"

Foran Gap.

I-49 was once going to follow US 259? How would it have gotten from Waldron to Page? The terrain is very rugged in that part of the country.

Quote from: bwana39 on April 24, 2020, 05:08:09 PM
US 59 was originally supposed to follow AR41 to DeQueen but temporarily routed through Texarkana because there was a bridge at Texarkana.  It initially followed the current TX8 from Linden to  Boston (New Boston) then followed US82 to Texarkana. Later it was shortened to skip New Boston and followed US67 directly to Texarkana. When Wright Patman Lake was built, it was redirected along SH47 from Linden to Atlanta to Texarkana (by then the District TXDOT office was in Atlanta).

As to I-49 in Oklahoma,  It would still be a fit to follow US59 to US271 then back to Ft Smith. That said, OK has as little money as Arkansas especially for Southeast Oklahoma.  This is the place where JFK came to open US259 where no real road had existed before. 

A good route for I49 would have been Texarkana to roughly Foreman AR to Idabel then roughly follow US259 to US59 Near Paige OK then to 271. (The distance would be little different than the proposed moutain route through Arkansas

It looks like I49 will stay entirely in Arkansas and probably will take 25 years or more to complete. I really don't see it taking any less anywhere else.

Quote from: bwana39 on April 24, 2020, 05:08:09 PM
US 59 was originally supposed to follow AR41 to DeQueen but temporarily routed through Texarkana because there was a bridge at Texarkana.  It initially followed the current TX8 from Linden to  Boston (New Boston) then followed US82 to Texarkana. Later it was shortened to skip New Boston and followed US67 directly to Texarkana. When Wright Patman Lake was built, it was redirected along SH47 from Linden to Atlanta to Texarkana (by then the District TXDOT office was in Atlanta).

Do you have a source for this information? I grew up on US 59 in Arkansas and I have never heard of it being routed along Highway 41. The only thing that has anything to do with another routing for US 59 that I have seen is an old document from ODOT's predecessor saying that in the future, US 59 could be rerouted to follow what was then OK 103 and OK 21 from Page through Idabel into Texas. Nothing ever came of it. I have seen thousands of maps of this part of the world and have never seen anything about US 59 being routed along AR 41, or anything about a Temporary US 59 designation. Arkansas showed temporary US routes at the time, such as Temporary US 70 through Lockesburg and Nashville.

In the Texarkana area,  59 originally followed US 67 to (modern) TX 8. Loop 14 in Texarkana was US 59 at one time, as well before it was extended down State Line Road/ US 71 to the 67/82 junction

Quote from: US71 on May 08, 2020, 08:21:59 PM
In the Texarkana area,  59 originally followed US 67 to (modern) TX 8. Loop 14 in Texarkana was US 59 at one time, as well before it was extended down State Line Road/ US 71 to the 67/82 junction

I would swear I had seen something that said INITIALLY (1931?) US-59 had initially followed SH 8 to Boston / New Boston; the county seat then followed 82 to Texarkana. I cannot find that. So seemingly it ended at Maud and had a break from Maud to Page OK.

https://www.txdot.gov/tpp/hwy/us/us0059.htm

03/01/1935 - Maud 40, Jefferson 18, Marshall 28, Carthage 28, Center 24, San Augustine 51, Jasper 21, Kibbyville 19, Buna 15, Silsbee 20, Beaumont 19, Port Arthur.  (It is understood that the location of US 59 between Page, Oklahoma, and Maud, Texas, as given in this description, is temporary awaiting a more direct route between these points so that it will not be necessary to have US 59 and US 71 traverse the same territory, which will greatly shorten the distance for US 59 between these points.)

Look over the web link, it has more.  Note 59 Originally went to Port Arthur not Laredo.  The 1939 reroute is the first Minute order on the TXDOT site that takes it to Texarkana and actually doesn't leave it hanging in Maud.

Quote from: bugo on May 07, 2020, 12:28:42 AM
I-49 was once going to follow US 259? How would it have gotten from Waldron to Page? The terrain is very rugged in that part of the country.

The terrain from Ft Smith to Mena isn't any better.  It would be a push either way as far as mountains go.

It wouldn't go from Waldron to Page. It would skip Waldron. Basically 271 to 59 then back to Mena.

Quote from: US71 on May 08, 2020, 08:21:59 PM
In the Texarkana area,  59 originally followed US 67 to (modern) TX 8. Loop 14 in Texarkana was US 59 at one time, as well before it was extended down State Line Road/ US 71 to the 67/82 junction

"Modern" TX 8 was "OLD"  TX 8. US-59 from Linden to Maud was the once and future SH-8

I used to live in Panola County next door to a woman born in the late 1910's .  She called US-59 "Highway 8" to her death.  While SH-8 was truncated at first at Corley then at Linden it had originally been signed all the way to Silsbee.

http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/old-highway-maps/1936-official-north-texas-high.jpg

Quote from: bwana39 on May 09, 2020, 02:35:49 PM

Quote from: US71 on May 08, 2020, 08:21:59 PM
In the Texarkana area,  59 originally followed US 67 to (modern) TX 8. Loop 14 in Texarkana was US 59 at one time, as well before it was extended down State Line Road/ US 71 to the 67/82 junction

"Modern" TX 8 was "OLD"  TX 8. US-59 from Linden to Maud was the once and future SH-8

I used to live in Panola County next door to a woman born in the late 1910's .  She called US-59 "Highway 8" to her death.  While SH-8 was truncated at first at Corley then at Linden it had originally been signed all the way to Silsbee.

http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/old-highway-maps/1936-official-north-texas-high.jpg

There's not a significant difference, mileage-wise, from Linden to Texarkana via either the TX 8/US 67 route via Maud and the current US 59 through Atlanta.   My guess is that at some point political pressure from Atlanta interests was able to get the US highway rerouted through that city, at which point Linden>Maud reverted to a state-signed route.  Not surprising; Atlanta is the largest single town between Marshall and Texarkana, and it's situated along the main old Missouri Pacific (now part of UP) line from St. Louis to Texas.   And by doing so, it essentially sealed the fate of US 59 as a multiplex with US 71 north of Texarkana, leaving the TX 8/AR 41 alternative out of the mix. 

Quote from: bwana39 on May 09, 2020, 02:10:20 PM

Quote from: bugo on May 07, 2020, 12:28:42 AM
I-49 was once going to follow US 259? How would it have gotten from Waldron to Page? The terrain is very rugged in that part of the country.

The terrain from Ft Smith to Mena isn't any better.  It would be a push either way as far as mountains go.

Page and Waldron are (roughly) between Fort Smith and Mena. There are two huge mountains in the way (Black Fork Mountain and Fourche Mountain) and the current US 71-270 routing and future I-49 routing through Foran Gap is the path of least resistance. If it went directly from Waldron to Page, it would have to cut through the western end of Black Fork Mountain.

Quote from: bwana39 on May 09, 2020, 01:26:30 PM

Quote from: US71 on May 08, 2020, 08:21:59 PM
In the Texarkana area,  59 originally followed US 67 to (modern) TX 8. Loop 14 in Texarkana was US 59 at one time, as well before it was extended down State Line Road/ US 71 to the 67/82 junction

I would swear I had seen something that said INITIALLY (1931?) US-59 had initially followed SH 8 to Boston / New Boston; the county seat then followed 82 to Texarkana. I cannot find that. So seemingly it ended at Maud and had a break from Maud to Page OK.

I was really confused by this because Maud, OK also has a Highway 59. That one is a state highway.

Quote from: bugo on May 09, 2020, 04:44:37 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on May 09, 2020, 02:10:20 PM

Quote from: bugo on May 07, 2020, 12:28:42 AM
I-49 was once going to follow US 259? How would it have gotten from Waldron to Page? The terrain is very rugged in that part of the country.

The terrain from Ft Smith to Mena isn't any better.  It would be a push either way as far as mountains go.

Page and Waldron are (roughly) between Fort Smith and Mena. There are two huge mountains in the way (Black Fork Mountain and Fourche Mountain) and the current US 71-270 routing and future I-49 routing through Foran Gap is the path of least resistance. If it went directly from Waldron to Page, it would have to cut through the western end of Black Fork Mountain.

While promoted as an alternative by McCurtain County interests (disclosure: my cousin was on that committee), US 259 never really made it into the serious mix (topology issues).  What did emerge as an alternate in the early '90's once the first high priority corridor (literally; it is HPC #1) was established with KC and Shreveport as the endpoints was a "detour" into OK.  It would have either used the I-540 freeway through Fort Smith -- or the southern approach to a new bridge more or less where the planned Arkansas River crossing is located would have turned west near US 71 -- and continued into OK, following US 271 and AR 112 via Pocola, and then US 59 from Poteau southward, following it back into AR east of Page -- and then southward after the US 71 merge as per current plans.  The rationale was simple -- avoidance of the gradients on each side of Foran Gap, and maintaining a steady near-1% "ruling" gradient by essentially following the Kansas City Southern main line via Poteau and Heavener, which re-enters AR alongside US 59/270 (railroads are famous for pre-selecting the path of least resistance/grades).  Mileage-wise, about 8% more than via a direct US 71 alignment, but construction would be decidedly easier.   Of course, eventually this detour was discarded when OK declined to commit funds to the project, claiming limited benefits to the state save a few bucks from travel-oriented tax revenues.  So the corridor choices were winnowed down to all-AR options -- and the project is where it is today.  Even over a quarter-century ago, OK could not be counted on to actively participate in such ventures.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 09, 2020, 05:17:22 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on May 09, 2020, 01:26:30 PM

Quote from: US71 on May 08, 2020, 08:21:59 PM
In the Texarkana area,  59 originally followed US 67 to (modern) TX 8. Loop 14 in Texarkana was US 59 at one time, as well before it was extended down State Line Road/ US 71 to the 67/82 junction

I would swear I had seen something that said INITIALLY (1931?) US-59 had initially followed SH 8 to Boston / New Boston; the county seat then followed 82 to Texarkana. I cannot find that. So seemingly it ended at Maud and had a break from Maud to Page OK.

I was really confused by this because Maud, OK also has a Highway 59. That one is a state highway.

Maud Texas  https://www.google.com/maps/place/Maud,+TX+75567/@33.3266602,-94.3493472,14.5z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x863435b00c22e1fd:0xe05adcb475f8d70!8m2!3d33.3329014!4d-94.3426964

I didn't know there was a Maud OK. My bad.

Quote from: bugo on May 07, 2020, 12:28:42 AM
I-49 was once going to follow US 259? How would it have gotten from Waldron to Page? The terrain is very rugged in that part of the country.

Waldron to Page?   (I-49)

It would have continued along US-59 from Page to Poteau, the followed US-271 to Ft Smith.

Like it has been said several times. There is zero support outside the mostly rural areas the route would have followed to build this or any larger capacity road through Eastern Oklahoma. The upgrades to US-70 across far southern Oklahoma is a surprise.

Quote from: bwana39 on May 10, 2020, 02:50:19 PM

Quote from: bugo on May 07, 2020, 12:28:42 AM
I-49 was once going to follow US 259? How would it have gotten from Waldron to Page? The terrain is very rugged in that part of the country.

Waldron to Page?   (I-49)

It would have continued along US-59 from Page to Poteau, the followed US-271 to Ft Smith.

Like it has been said several times. There is zero support outside the mostly rural areas the route would have followed to build this or any larger capacity road through Eastern Oklahoma. The upgrades to US-70 across far southern Oklahoma is a surprise.

The US 70 upgrades are hardly comprehensive; the most prominent of those being the Madill-Ardmore reroute, dating from the '80's, and the Durant bypass freeway.  Everything else, including the Idabel bypass, an expressway, has been done as "spot" fixes -- and the Idabel project dates from the mid-90's -- hardly indicative of a continuing set of upgrades.  OK projects tend to be done when local interests raise a clamor about (a) being previously ignored when ODOT distributes projects or (b) that they're necessary to attract or provoke expansion of commercial facilities.  In SE OK, this means Weyerhaeuser (lumber products) or Tyson (food processing).  When one or another of those lodge "concerns" with town or county officials, that's quickly passed on to OKC.  And -- even though the process may seem glacial at times -- things eventually get done.  US 70 has been getting "twinned" west of Idabel a mile or two at a time for the last decade, largely to placate the Tyson managers at their Broken Bow facility on US 70/259 south of town.  Eventually it'll be 4-lane divided all the way to Hugo, so Tyson trucks can head north on the INT or south on US 271 toward Dallas a few minutes quicker than now. 

But these "eked out" projects are about all that can be anticipated for the foreseeable future; the lack of impetus from ODOT or their OKC handlers is something that can't be readily overcome; local initiative can only go so far.  And that local initiative seems to be more adept at forming "roadblocks" to projects (e.g. Muskogee and the abortive bypass plan, or Atoka or Stringtown re maintaining the status quo) than promoting them -- the OK state mechanism has never needed much of a reason to not spend money!     

Quote from: sparker on May 10, 2020, 04:32:17 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on May 10, 2020, 02:50:19 PM

Quote from: bugo on May 07, 2020, 12:28:42 AM
I-49 was once going to follow US 259? How would it have gotten from Waldron to Page? The terrain is very rugged in that part of the country.

Waldron to Page?   (I-49)

It would have continued along US-59 from Page to Poteau, the followed US-271 to Ft Smith.

Like it has been said several times. There is zero support outside the mostly rural areas the route would have followed to build this or any larger capacity road through Eastern Oklahoma. The upgrades to US-70 across far southern Oklahoma is a surprise.

The US 70 upgrades are hardly comprehensive; the most prominent of those being the Madill-Ardmore reroute, dating from the '80's, and the Durant bypass freeway.  Everything else, including the Idabel bypass, an expressway, has been done as "spot" fixes -- and the Idabel project dates from the mid-90's -- hardly indicative of a continuing set of upgrades.  OK projects tend to be done when local interests raise a clamor about (a) being previously ignored when ODOT distributes projects or (b) that they're necessary to attract or provoke expansion of commercial facilities.  In SE OK, this means Weyerhaeuser (lumber products) or Tyson (food processing).  When one or another of those lodge "concerns" with town or county officials, that's quickly passed on to OKC.  And -- even though the process may seem glacial at times -- things eventually get done.  US 70 has been getting "twinned" west of Idabel a mile or two at a time for the last decade, largely to placate the Tyson managers at their Broken Bow facility on US 70/259 south of town.  Eventually it'll be 4-lane divided all the way to Hugo, so Tyson trucks can head north on the INT or south on US 271 toward Dallas a few minutes quicker than now. 

But these "eked out" projects are about all that can be anticipated for the foreseeable future; the lack of impetus from ODOT or their OKC handlers is something that can't be readily overcome; local initiative can only go so far.  And that local initiative seems to be more adept at forming "roadblocks" to projects (e.g. Muskogee and the abortive bypass plan, or Atoka or Stringtown re maintaining the status quo) than promoting them -- the OK state mechanism has never needed much of a reason to not spend money!   

I agree with you, but at the same time, it is surprising that they have twinned US-70 and Replaced bridges.  The North Idabel bypass is a key example of knee jerks. US 70 had been realigned arount the east and south of Idabel in the eighties. The north bypass missed a couple of traffic signals and little else.   The twinning from the Arkansas state line to past Hugo is more and faster that I remember seeing anything done in McCurtain and Chocktaw counties.  There is  twinning west of Hugo on US-70 being done, particularly the Durant bypass.

Even absent the places where it has been improved to 2x2 the general condition of the roadway east of US75 is like night and day from a decade ago.

Quote from: sparker on May 10, 2020, 04:32:17 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on May 10, 2020, 02:50:19 PM

Quote from: bugo on May 07, 2020, 12:28:42 AM
I-49 was once going to follow US 259? How would it have gotten from Waldron to Page? The terrain is very rugged in that part of the country.

Waldron to Page?   (I-49)

It would have continued along US-59 from Page to Poteau, the followed US-271 to Ft Smith.

Like it has been said several times. There is zero support outside the mostly rural areas the route would have followed to build this or any larger capacity road through Eastern Oklahoma. The upgrades to US-70 across far southern Oklahoma is a surprise.

The US 70 upgrades are hardly comprehensive; the most prominent of those being the Madill-Ardmore reroute, dating from the '80's, and the Durant bypass freeway.  Everything else, including the Idabel bypass, an expressway, has been done as "spot" fixes -- and the Idabel project dates from the mid-90's -- hardly indicative of a continuing set of upgrades. 

Believe it or not, there is a comprehensive plan to 4 lane US70 from Ardmore to Idabel.  Back in the 90's when the ROADS bonds were passed, many of the rural areas got guarantees from ODOT for their projects. Without those, the bonds wouldn't have passed. Similar deals were cut for US183 from Clinton to Frederick, OK6 from Altus to Elk City,  US59 from Sallisaw to Poteau, and others that don't come readily to mind. I know because I worked for the Legislature back then.  None of the commitments had a deadline, hence the glacial pace. 

The next major US70 projects are the Madill bypass and replacement of the Roosevelt Bridge across the Washita arm of Lake Texoma.

https://www.heralddemocrat.com/story/news/2022/01/13/closing-gap-us-75-expansion-halfway-complete/9191020002/

Work on US 75 continues with interchange with US 82 finishing the work. 

It will be interesting to see if the US-75 expansion work thru the US-82 interchange will leave room open to build a 5-level directional stack interchange. If DFW metro growth continues its North-ward spread the current "volleyball" interchange isn't going to cut it.

Quote from: rte66manThe next major US70 projects are the Madill bypass and replacement of the Roosevelt Bridge across the Washita arm of Lake Texoma.

I think the Madill Bypass will be initially built as a Super 2. I've seen maps showing at least a couple or so limited access exits. But I can't tell if the whole thing will be originally constructed as limited access or be more like the Duncan Bypass and evolve in that direction over time

I find it quite unusual that US 82 has exit numbers at its interchanges. However, those exit numbers are nowhere near what they would be if they were numbered via the mileage of US 82 from the New Mexico/Texas border. The exit numbers are in the 600s, and US 82 is only about 565 miles in length within the state of Texas. When exit numbers are numbered via mileage, I prefer them to be based on the actual mileage from the state line or the highway's terminus.

Those exit numbers are probably numbered off of the Texas Reference Marker (TRM) system (http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/trm/reference_markers_coordinates.htm).

Sparker is spot on in his last post, and the final part of US 70 to become 4-lane will probably be the section west of Valliant where, ironically, the Weyerhauser plant is located.  I don't see that happening in my lifetime.  Also, that is currently the worst section of the highway from Idabel all the way to Durant. 

Furthermore, there is a decent influx of revenue in Oklahoma right now.  So, our legislature is naturally discussing a passage of yet another tax cut!

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 20, 2022, 09:00:44 PM
Those exit numbers are probably numbered off of the Texas Reference Marker (TRM) system (http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/trm/reference_markers_coordinates.htm).

They are indeed.

Quote from: splashflash on January 19, 2022, 10:38:02 PM
https://www.heralddemocrat.com/story/news/2022/01/13/closing-gap-us-75-expansion-halfway-complete/9191020002/

Work on US 75 continues with interchange with US 82 finishing the work.

I hate to be "that guy," but does anyone at that newspaper edit stories?

Quote from: Road Hog on January 20, 2022, 10:00:00 PM

Quote from: splashflash on January 19, 2022, 10:38:02 PM
https://www.heralddemocrat.com/story/news/2022/01/13/closing-gap-us-75-expansion-halfway-complete/9191020002/

Work on US 75 continues with interchange with US 82 finishing the work.

I hate to be "that guy," but does anyone at that newspaper edit stories?

At any paper, editing is generally just for brevity and if anything hits the reader (editor) in the face. If there is nothing glaring it goes on.   With the publishing software they use today, the writer is often also the editor. With digital editions or just online postings by the newspaper, there is rarely if ever any editing at all.  It is seemingly as unedited as this forum.

Sometimes they use voice-to-text and even then don't check it beyond a precursory run through spell check.  This is especially prevalent in transcribed versions of television and radio news.  In small markets such as Sherman - Denison, oftentimes, the TV and local newspaper(s) share.

I agree that the product of all that call themselves PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS should be better, but.....

Quote from: dchristy on January 20, 2022, 09:05:06 PM
Furthermore, there is a decent influx of revenue in Oklahoma right now.  So, our legislature is naturally discussing a passage of yet another tax cut!

Weed tax?

<BUMP>

From the September 2022 ODOT Commission agenda:

Quote
b) Bryan County – District II (CI-2372B)

The Department has selected TEIM Design, PLLC to provide preliminary engineering for US-69:
from approximately 4.25 miles north of the Oklahoma/Texas State line, extending north approximately 4.5 miles. Services to include preliminary engineering, survey, and environmental.
CI-2372B TEIM Design, PLLC

Total Not to Exceed Amount $1,268,760.00

Project JP-33870(05) is included in the 8 year construction work plan with a scheduled let date in FFY 2027. The total estimate for construction of this project is $181,000,000.00.

Wow. $181,000,000 for 4.5 miles of rural freeway.

Yeah, that cost level is pretty ridiculous. Nothing exactly really fancy is going on here. No braided ramps. No 4-level or 5-level stack interchanges the last time I checked. This is just supposed to be a conversion of a segment of 4-lane divided expressway into Interstate class freeway. A $181 million cost level seems like a lot of heavy padding was included to pay certain people a whole hell of a lot of money.