Print

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

[Scott5114]

If you look at the Interstate 240 designation on the loop around the Oklahoma City metropolitan area, we are finally to the point where we have a truly contiguous route there that can shoulder the burden of some of that transportation need in a loop format. That's common practice across the country, and you'll see that in many of the metropolitan areas, and that update will really be beneficial as far as everything from signage to how do you describe that route on a green-and-white sign.

Truly spoken like a man who holds a degree in landscape architecture.

[SkyPesos]

I have a feeling that I-240 would go through some of the same problems I-275 has in terms of functioning like a beltway...

[I-35]

How are mile markers and exit numbering going to work with this scheme?  I assume the 'follow' routes will retain their original numbers, and perhaps the discrete portions will be based off the distance from the existing 240 mileage scheme starting at 44/Lawton junction being Exit 1A/MM 0.0.

[SkyPesos]

How are mile markers and exit numbering going to work with this scheme?  I assume the 'follow' routes will retain their original numbers, and perhaps the discrete portions will be based off the distance from the existing 240 mileage scheme starting at 44/Lawton junction being Exit 1A/MM 0.0.

Normally, beltways have the mile markers start at an intersection with an interstate on the south side (in this case, OK 152 and I-44), and increase clockwise. Looks like I-240 may be starting at around the same point, but going clockwise instead so it uses its current exit numbers. In this case, possible exit numbers:

22 - I-40 and Kickapoo
40 - I-44 and Kickapoo
54 - I-35/I-44 and Kilpatrick
63 - OK 77 and Kilpatrick
79 - I-40 and Kilpatrick
90 - I-44 and OK 152

[The Ghostbuster]

Wikipedia has updated its Interstate 240 (Oklahoma) page to include this monstrosity of a proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_240_(Oklahoma). I could support this proposal with one exception: give the Kickapoo Turnpike another designation. I don't care if its an Interstate or a state highway designation, it should not be part of Interstate 240.

[flaroads]

This will be the first instance of a "full beltway" that will have three Interstate overlaps, with two being the same Interstate (I-44)...

Of course I'm using the term "full beltway" loosely in this instance...

[SkyPesos]

This will be the first instance of a "full beltway" that will have three Interstate overlaps, with two being the same Interstate (I-44)...

Of course I'm using the term "full beltway" loosely in this instance...

So it'll have concurrencies with two interstate designations, which would tie it with I-465 after the I-69 completion up to Indianapolis. Though would the I-465 concurrency with interstates be counted as a single overlap, as it's continuous between I-74's western junction all the way to I-69's northern junction?

[Scott5114]

Wikipedia has updated its Interstate 240 (Oklahoma) page to include this monstrosity of a proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_240_(Oklahoma). I could support this proposal with one exception: give the Kickapoo Turnpike another designation. I don't care if its an Interstate or a state highway designation, it should not be part of Interstate 240.

[Strider]

Oh wow, what the fuck? The SH-3xx numbers make sense but that overgrown I-240 is going to take a lot of getting used to.

A beltway that’s only 5 miles south of downtown, with tons of suburbs even south of there, but also 20 miles east of downtown in farmland? And I thought I-275 here is a terrible example of how to do a beltway, specifically on the west side.

I-240 as a beltway around OKC? Wow. that's new. I don't understand putting I-240 signs up Kickapoo Turnpike. It seems so far away. Is there any ideas why Kickapoo Turnpike didn't start at the I-40/I-240 split and go up? Why was it built like 10 miles east?

[Scott5114]

I-240 as a beltway around OKC? Wow. that's new. I don't understand putting I-240 signs up Kickapoo Turnpike. It seems so far away. Is there any ideas why Kickapoo Turnpike didn't start at the I-40/I-240 split and go up? Why was it built like 10 miles east?

That would put it uncomfortably close to downtown Choctaw and run it right through downtown Jones. It's only 6 miles east of the current I-40/I-240 junction.

[Plutonic Panda]

I-240 as a beltway around OKC? Wow. that's new. I don't understand putting I-240 signs up Kickapoo Turnpike. It seems so far away. Is there any ideas why Kickapoo Turnpike didn't start at the I-40/I-240 split and go up? Why was it built like 10 miles east?

That would put it uncomfortably close to downtown Choctaw and run it right through downtown Jones. It's only 6 miles east of the current I-40/I-240 junction.

Yeah but it still should have been done, IMHO.

[Scott5114]

Eh, it depends on what the intended purpose of the road is. If it's to serve as a commuter beltway now, it's too far east. If it's meant to be a commuter beltway for the OKC of a few decades from now, it might be in the right spot. If it's meant to be an OKC bypass route for I-44 traffic, it really doesn't matter where you put it.

If it actually made it down to Highway 9 I'd get a decent amount of use out of it. As it stands, the last time it would have been useful to me, I completely forgot it was there. Whoops.

[SkyPesos]

If If If it's meant to be a commuter beltway for the OKC of a few decades from now, it might be in the right spot.

I know this is the third time of me mentioning I-275 in this thread, but if you said that about I-275’s west loop, and alignment through Indiana (replacing OKC with Cincinnati of course) 60 years ago, I would be laughing right now, because it would’ve aged so well.

[Scott5114]

If If If it's meant to be a commuter beltway for the OKC of a few decades from now, it might be in the right spot.

I know this is the third time of me mentioning I-275 in this thread, but if you said that about I-275’s west loop, and alignment through Indiana (replacing OKC with Cincinnati of course) 60 years ago, I would be laughing right now, because it would’ve aged so well.

Such is the unusually prescient nature of OTA, though—the Creek Turnpike was thought to be built way too far out in the boonies to be of any use to anyone when it was originally surveyed in the late 1980s, and the Cherokee just a rural-interest safety improvement sop. In the 2010s, the Creek had to be widened to accommodate more traffic, and in 2021, the Cherokee was proposed to become part of an interstate because it serves a metro area that barely existed when it was built.

[FakeMikeMorgan]

Hey everyone,

First time poster, long time lurker.

I asked this same question back in October of last year on the r/OKC subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/okc/comments/jh96ns/extending_i240/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share  I guess someone at ODOT saw it and made it happened.

[rte66man]

Having taken some time to come to terms with it and looking at the way some of the system interchanges are constructed, I'm personally fine with the route. That being said, one of the things that gives me pause about this is that most of it is under the jurisdiction of OTA and not ODOT. Now, I don't give a shit about tolls, what bothers me is that, because OTA has historically operated under barrier-based tolling systems, they tend to be very parsimonious with interchange placement.

Case in point, both of the two I-44 overlaps have the same number of interchanges. Look at the green sections on that map just above—that overlap with the Turner Turnpike is a straight shot with only one access point. I feel like that's going to make it hard for this I-240 to function in the way that most cities' beltways do.

Now that OTA is embracing a pay-by-plate approach, they have no real reason to not build more interchanges...other than the fact that they cost money and there's so many of them that would be needed to catch up to the level of access that ODOT usually provides.

There's zero reason to add more interchanges on the NE concurrence with I44 at this time.  Not enough people out there. You might make a good argument for one at Hiwassee Road but that's about it.

[plain]

This thing looks like I-435 got turned on its side and became even more fucked up. Maybe if OKC was to really take off in growth and additional freeways become a must, it wouldn't look as bad. But right now those sharp corners just aren't doing anything to help form a "beltway".

[Tom958]

This thing looks like I-435 got turned on its side and became even more fucked up. Maybe if OKC was to really take off in growth and additional freeways become a must, it wouldn't look as bad. But right now those sharp corners just aren't doing anything to help form a "beltway".

I assume that no construction is regarded as necessary for this renumbering scheme, but it'd be nice if there was a 40 mph flyover ramp in the 240-counterclockwise direction at the north end of the Kickapoo Turnpike as well as the south.

[Alex]

I-240 extension approved by the Transportation Commission, pending approval by AASHTO and FHWA.

I wonder what AASHTO/FHWA will really think of this.

I'm sure it will get approved without question. If they proposed a new number, then there might be some doubt...

You would think that the FHWA would still have the same opinion regarding urban area Interstate overlaps as in 1982, when I-240 was truncated instead of cosigned from I-40 south to it's current west end. But now we'll get I-40/240 east to the Kickapoo Tpk, and will it be signed I-240 north at that point?

More recent beltway/loop scenarios discarded the assumption that cardinal direction banners can change along a route without question. Per the logic of NJDOT,  I-295 could not change direction banners...so you have I-295 north running southwest into PA; and in Jacksonville you have I-295 North/South but with the East Beltway/West Beltway distinctions. So I-240 changing from east/west to north/south there is not even a given.

[Henry]

Just another case of too much, too soon, considering you'd add at least 75 miles to the current length (from 16 to over 91). And I don't believe that the good folks in Cincinnati will like losing their claim to the longest 3di beltway either.

[SkyPesos]

Just another case of too much, too soon, considering you'd add at least 75 miles to the current length (from 16 to over 91). And I don't believe that the good folks in Cincinnati will like losing their claim to the longest 3di beltway either.

To be fair, I-275 is only about a half mile longer than I-435, so it’s not like we have the longest beltway by that much.

[TheStranger]

Just another case of too much, too soon, considering you'd add at least 75 miles to the current length (from 16 to over 91).

Isn't that what happened to I-476 in the 1990s, when it was expanded from just the Blue Route to the entirety of PA 9?

And I don't believe that the good folks in Cincinnati will like losing their claim to the longest 3di beltway either.

Not sure AASHTO really pays attention to that at all (and their own ability to enforce their directives is limited, i.e. the earlier Oklahoma example of the US 377 extension).

[kphoger]

I don't believe that the good folks in Cincinnati will like losing their claim to the longest 3di beltway either.

I have a hard time believing the good folks in Cincinnati have any clue where the longest 3di beltway is, let alone care.

[Scott5114]

Having taken some time to come to terms with it and looking at the way some of the system interchanges are constructed, I'm personally fine with the route. That being said, one of the things that gives me pause about this is that most of it is under the jurisdiction of OTA and not ODOT. Now, I don't give a shit about tolls, what bothers me is that, because OTA has historically operated under barrier-based tolling systems, they tend to be very parsimonious with interchange placement.

Case in point, both of the two I-44 overlaps have the same number of interchanges. Look at the green sections on that map just above—that overlap with the Turner Turnpike is a straight shot with only one access point. I feel like that's going to make it hard for this I-240 to function in the way that most cities' beltways do.

Now that OTA is embracing a pay-by-plate approach, they have no real reason to not build more interchanges...other than the fact that they cost money and there's so many of them that would be needed to catch up to the level of access that ODOT usually provides.

There's zero reason to add more interchanges on the NE concurrence with I44 at this time.  Not enough people out there. You might make a good argument for one at Hiwassee Road but that's about it.

There's zero apparent reason for there to be interchanges at Orlando Road, or Mulhall Road, or Methodist Road, or any of the other random county roads that ODOT builds interchanges for... but there are people that live out in those areas and would find the access helpful, even if it's fewer than the number of people that use a big city or state highway system interchange. I know because I grew up right next to a random Oklahoma county road interchange like the ones I listed.

I'd like to see interchanges at Hiwassee and Memorial/Douglas at the very least. Later on, might be good to add them to Midwest and Post as well.

[triplemultiplex]

Extending 240 to 40/Kilpatrick: love it
Extending 240 to 35/44/Kilpatrick: like it
Extending 240 over Kickapoo: don't like it, but I guess I get it.

I'm another person who saw the future of the Kilpatrick as continuing straight south to the Baily Spur and OK 9 over to I-35 and earning I-435 shields when complete.  In that scenario, I-240 for sure gets extended west to meet this I-435.

But this real proposal is an okay silver medal, if a little awkward to shoehorn the Kickapoo into this and making a full loop.
I hope AASHTO/FHWA doesn't balk at new interstate shields on existing toll facilities.  Because I would like that to be a precedent for adding 3di's to other tollways elsewhere. (Orlando, Dallas, Houston, Denver...)