If I-45 were ever expanded

[texaskdog]

There's two big problems with extending I-45 from Galveston down to Corpus Christi via the coastline.

1. The extreme 90 degree turn from Galveston would necessitate a completely different route number. It doesn't make any sense to have an Interstate highway make a big L-shape in its route.

2. I-69 will serve the purpose of being an Interstate link between the Houston and Corpus Christi areas.

Well it will hook up with I-69E if that makes any sense!!!  Plus I was thinking giant piers in the water

[Scott5114]

In terms of shipping lane distance, New Orleans is the nearest, most direct American port to/from the Panama Canal. That will put more import/export traffic onto the I-49 corridor.

Since water transport is more efficient than road/rail, goods bound for Denver should dock at Houston, not New Orleans.

Better yet, make the Arkansas River navigable to Pueblo. Just a short haul up I-25 from there.

Don't know if that can be done, but the river is navigable up to Muskogee, Oklahoma by barges.  Offload ships in New Orleans to barges that can go to Muskogee.

I believe that, using the Verdigris River, barge traffic can make it all the way to Catoosa (which is just east of Tulsa).

[roadman65]

We have all mentioned how US 75 should be an extended I-45, but what about the US 69 corridor between I-44 and KC area?  It will never be done being so close to I-49, but it would be a good path to take it farther north.  Plus part of US 69 is freeway anyway as you get close to the Kansas City area it would have some already built for it.

[bugo]

I have always wanted to know why INT went to Hugo.   I just thought there was some big shots who lived in Tulsa and wanted a quick ride to Lake Hugo to go fishing, or make a drug run.   

There is NO traffic on the Indian Nation Turnpike.  That being said, there's not much traffic on the Muskogee Turnpike south ("east") of Muskogee or northern ("eastern") segments of the Creek Turnpike.

[bugo]

Better yet, make the Arkansas River navigable to Pueblo. Just a short haul up I-25 from there.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[bugo]

Don't know if that can be done, but the river is navigable up to Muskogee, Oklahoma by barges.  Offload ships in New Orleans to barges that can go to Muskogee.

Northwest of Muskogee, the Verdigris River is navigable to the Port of Catoosa, northeast of Tulsa.  Ships would dock there, not in Muskogee.  I'm not sure if there's even a port in Muskogee.

[Scott5114]

Don't know if that can be done, but the river is navigable up to Muskogee, Oklahoma by barges.  Offload ships in New Orleans to barges that can go to Muskogee.

Northwest of Muskogee, the Verdigris River is navigable to the Port of Catoosa, northeast of Tulsa.  Ships would dock there, not in Muskogee.  I'm not sure if there's even a port in Muskogee.

There is. There is also Port 33 between there and Catoosa.

[Bobby5280]

We have all mentioned how US 75 should be an extended I-45, but what about the US 69 corridor between I-44 and KC area?  It will never be done being so close to I-49, but it would be a good path to take it farther north.  Plus part of US 69 is freeway anyway as you get close to the Kansas City area it would have some already built for it.

If anything, I could perhaps see the US-69 freeway in Kansas extended 27 miles farther South to Pittsburg years from now if traffic levels increase. But, like you said, with I-49 being so close it's liable to draw Kansas City bound traffic from the US-69 corridor. The US-169 corridor between Tulsa and Kansas City is in the same situation, with even less miles of existing Freeway. I could maybe see a couple roads North of Tulsa being upgraded, such as US-75 to Bartlesville. A bunch of US-169 was built in mind for possible upgrades to four lane or even super highway configuration. With I-49 open between Joplin and Kansas City I'm sure a lot of drivers from Tulsa going to Kansas City would probably choose I-49 rather than US-169.

Here's what I think is an interesting question. Considering how many years it will probably take to finish I-49 in Arkansas, particularly the Texarkana to Fort Smith segment through the Ouachita Mountains, how will US-69 in Oklahoma look by the time I-49 is finished?

Depending on how political winds blow, I could see progress on I-49 in Arkansas lighting a fire under the rear ends of a few lawmakers in Oklahoma. It might persuade them to finally do something about US-69 between the Red River and I-44/Big Cabin.

[Scott5114]

Depends where traffic from Tulsa is headed to in Kansas City. Anywhere on the Kansas side, it probably makes more sense to take 69 or 169 than 49.

It is doubtful that I-49 will influence Oklahoma's priorities in any meaningful way. The current Oklahoma transportation focus is fixing dilapidated bridges. Any road improvements are done to add needed capacity or address safety issues–using transportation to fuel economic development is not really something that is done here.

[J N Winkler]

The corridor I have long speculated is better for serious investment, partly because it is out of the area of influence of US 69 and I-49, is US 75 Tulsa-Omaha via Topeka.  Considerable lengths of it are already built to freeway standard, such as the entirety of the route through Topeka (US 56 intersection in Osage County to NW 46th Street in Shawnee County, a distance of almost 30 miles), the length through Tulsa and its northern suburbs (measuring from NE corner of Tulsa downtown loop at I-244 interchange to north end of the US 75 Tulsa-area freeway at 96th Street North, a distance of almost 11 miles), and the length immediately south of Nebraska I-480 (Kennedy Freeway through Bellevue and south Omaha, approximately 12 miles).  This is 53 miles of freeway, handling traffic through the most congested areas along the route, on a 382-mile itinerary following US 75.

Google Maps pegs US 75 Tulsa-Omaha as a 6h25m trip.  In comparison, the parallel alternative via I-49 and Kansas City is nearly all freeway but is 459 miles in length and is a 6h40m trip.  Bypassing Kansas City on I-435 through Kansas, which is necessary to convert this to an all-freeway itinerary, is 468 miles in length and 6h44m.

Clearly, there is some potential for time savings for Tulsa-Omaha traffic if US 75 is upgraded to a full freeway with rural speed limits of 70 in Oklahoma and 75 in Kansas and Nebraska, which is perfectly feasible given the terrain along the route.  At a minimum one would expect a journey time reduction of about 55 minutes, or about 14% of the time spent on the existing route.

But is it economic to build a freeway in this corridor?  To begin answering this question we need to estimate the minimum amount of traffic (the AADT in the least busy portions of the corridor) that is required to amortize the construction cost over a 25-year period.  Since this is a back-of-the-envelope job, let's assume driving time is valued at $10/hour and traffic is level, just to avoid the complexity of dealing with compound growth.  $20 million a mile gives a round $7.6 billion for the entire corridor.  (This includes the 53 miles that is already freeway, but I justify this on the basis that bypasses of Bartlesville, Neodesha, Independence, Lyndon, Holton, Auburn, and Nebraska City are likely to come in at over $20 million a mile.)  So the break-even traffic level is (7,600,000,000) / (25 * 365 * (55 / 60) * 10) = 91,000 VPD.  Considering that this is about 30 times the current traffic level on some portions of US 75 in Kansas, I think the economic case for an all-freeway route is just not there.

[ATLRedSoxFan]

There's two big problems with extending I-45 from Galveston down to Corpus Christi via the coastline.

1. The extreme 90 degree turn from Galveston would necessitate a completely different route number. It doesn't make any sense to have an Interstate highway make a big L-shape in its route.

I-75 in Florida does the same thing at Naples and becomes Everglades Parkway and is posted East-West instead of North-South

[Bobby5280]

Alligator Alley along I-75 isn't such a great example. That East-West segment is only about 80 miles in length. Proportionately it's a very small segment of I-75. And it wasn't originally part of I-75. It still made some sense for I-75 to be extended along Alligator Alley since that put its terminus into the Miami area, a major metropolitan destination.

Along the Texas coastline, it's more than 200 miles between Galveston and Corpus Christi. The existing I-45 route is only 285 miles long. There simply isn't enough justification to extend I-45 in a backwards dogleg 90 degrees toward Corpus Christi. I-69 is already going to carry a lot of Interstate traffic between Houston and Corpus Christi. Not many drivers in Houston would drive clear down to Galveston and then backwards toward Corpus. They'll take I-69 instead.

Over the long term, I can see parts of TX-35 being upgraded with more segments of freeway through places like Port Lavaca, Aransas Pass and Fulton. But I have a difficult time seeing justification for a complete Interstate link between Galveston and Corpus Christi running parallel to I-69. Such a link would be very difficult to build, especially if it was going to hug along the coastline and not take a bunch of strange turns and bends like the current route of TX-35. The TX-35 route has to do that since there are a number of wetlands, wildlife sanctuaries, swamps, etc. along the coast.

[codyg1985]

Considering how large Tulsa it, it is surprising it is not served by another 2di interstate. I think the case could be made for upgrading US 75 and US 69 to I-45 to Tulsa.

[bugo]

Most of US 69 south of McAlester and north of Muskogee can't be converted to freeway.  A new terrain route will have to be built.  The freeway portion between McAlester and Muskogee would need some serious updates to become and interstate.  I'd rather see turnpikes built from the Texas line to McAlester and from Muskogee to Vinita.

[Road Hog]

Most of US 69 south of McAlester and north of Muskogee can't be converted to freeway.  A new terrain route will have to be built.  The freeway portion between McAlester and Muskogee would need some serious updates to become and interstate.  I'd rather see turnpikes built from the Texas line to McAlester and from Muskogee to Vinita.

South of McAlester, the freeway can follow the original divided expressway in rural areas. Frontage roads would be required to service residences and businesses already there that would be cut off by a controlled-access highway. Obviously bypasses would be needed where 69 goes through those little towns. But 69 is already freeway between McAlester and Checotah, and also around Durant.

[rte66man]

Most of US 69 south of McAlester and north of Muskogee can't be converted to freeway.  A new terrain route will have to be built.  The freeway portion between McAlester and Muskogee would need some serious updates to become and interstate.  I'd rather see turnpikes built from the Texas line to McAlester and from Muskogee to Vinita.

Never happen.  The politicos from that area have blocked all efforts to bypass the towns that aren't already bypassed (Atoka, Stringtown, et al).  Can't see that changing anytime soon.

[bugo]

Trust me, I know there would be a lot of resistance.  But there was a lot of resistance in the construction of the Creek Turnpike and the OTA got it done anyway.  All it takes is a little political will.

[Bobby5280]

US-69 between Colbert and McAlester wouldn't be all that difficult to upgrade to Interstate standards.

Political will would be required to buy up some property in smaller towns (like Calera, Tushka, Stringtown, Kiowa and Savanna) to expand US-69/75 along its existing ROW. It might be more expensive to bypass those towns. Larger towns like Atoka would have to be bypassed.

US-75 between I-40 and Tulsa would be more difficult to upgrade. Property would have to be bought and demolished in Henryetta to convert US-75 to Interstate standards. Same goes for Schulter and segments in Preston and Glenpool. Okmulgee is too big to convert US-75 through the center of town; it would have to be bypassed. Still, I think it's do-able.

Even if US-75 was made into an Interstate all the way to Tulsa, the need would still be pretty strong for US-69 to be converted into an Interstate up to Big Cabin. Muskogee, Wagoner, Choteau and Pryor Creek would have to be bypassed. The other parts of US-69 could be upgraded along the existing ROW.

[rte66man]

Trust me, I know there would be a lot of resistance.  But there was a lot of resistance in the construction of the Creek Turnpike and the OTA got it done anyway.  All it takes is a little political will.

You're missing the point. The Creek was done because it was on the plans since the 50's.  Those big homeowners never had a chance as they ignored the plats. The Tulsa World did an excellent series on this about 20 years ago.

A parallel turnpike running generally to the east of 69 was proposed in the mid 90s.  It was shot down so fast that it wasn't even brought up in committee.  Even in this day of Republican domination of the legislature, there is ZERO change of OTA even proposing it much less of it getting approval. Little Dixie still has some stroke.

Personally, I would like to see it.  I believe there is enough traffic to justify it as well.

[Bobby5280]

I don't remember that turnpike proposal.

The ones I remember from the 1990s were those Duncan to Davis and Snyder to Clinton turnpike proposals. Those proposals were promoted heavily by then Governor David Walters. Ultimately a turnpike isn't worth building if the traffic counts would be so low the road would lose money hand over fist. Those two turnpikes would have.

I think US-69 could work as a freeway. Much of it between the Red River and McAlester could be upgraded in bits and pieces without being turned into a turnpike. The section going by Muskogee, Wagoner, etc. would need more new terrain mileage. If any part of it had to be a turnpike that would be it.

[bugo]

Trust me, I know there would be a lot of resistance.  But there was a lot of resistance in the construction of the Creek Turnpike and the OTA got it done anyway.  All it takes is a little political will.

You're missing the point. The Creek was done because it was on the plans since the 50's.  Those big homeowners never had a chance as they ignored the plats. The Tulsa World did an excellent series on this about 20 years ago.

A parallel turnpike running generally to the east of 69 was proposed in the mid 90s.  It was shot down so fast that it wasn't even brought up in committee.  Even in this day of Republican domination of the legislature, there is ZERO change of OTA even proposing it much less of it getting approval. Little Dixie still has some stroke.

Personally, I would like to see it.  I believe there is enough traffic to justify it as well.

The politics of an area can change.  This road might be built sooner than you think.

[rte66man]

I don't remember that turnpike proposal.

The ones I remember from the 1990s were those Duncan to Davis and Snyder to Clinton turnpike proposals. Those proposals were promoted heavily by then Governor David Walters. Ultimately a turnpike isn't worth building if the traffic counts would be so low the road would lose money hand over fist. Those two turnpikes would have.

I think US-69 could work as a freeway. Much of it between the Red River and McAlester could be upgraded in bits and pieces without being turned into a turnpike. The section going by Muskogee, Wagoner, etc. would need more new terrain mileage. If any part of it had to be a turnpike that would be it.

The reason you never heard of it was it never made it into a bill. It was an informal trial balloon that was floated to see if there was any support.  The Little Dixie crowd plus the SW and NW rural boys said that OK had spent enough on getting 69 four laned.  It was time for their areas to get some of the road gravy.  That sentiment has not changed.

[adventurernumber1]

I like the idea of extending I-45 at least from Dallas to Tulsa. But due to I-49, a better idea than extending it to KC from there would be to extend it to Wichita, making a Tulsa-Wichita corridor. And I-45 would still fit ok in the grid.