AARoads Forum

Here is a place to discuss any improvements along US 69 in Oklahoma, moving it out of my previous post about the US 69 freeway in Kansas.

I wonder why Oklahoma isn't taking this more seriously if this is such as heavily used route?

Most of us take proper capitalization seriously too, but OkDOT doesn't, so why should we assume anything else we consider important matters to them?

Not happening. The end.

At any rate, upgrading US-69 in Oklahoma to Interstate quality from the Red River to Big Cabin is a far more justifiable project than doing an Interstate quality upgrade of US-69 in Kansas from Kansas City down to I-44. The latter project has I-49 running parallel to it not very far to the East. The segment of US-69 in Oklahoma in question has no parallel Interstate highway within close proximity.

Perhaps if the toll gates were removed from I-44 a bunch of truck traffic might get off US-69 and then use I-35 and I-44 instead. But removing the toll gates is not likely to happen since so many Oklahoma residents believe roads are funded with fairy dust, prayer and other forms of wishful thinking rather than actual money. They're not going to stand for a big fuel tax increase to offset removal of those toll gates. That brings about another tough question. If US-69 ever gets an Interstate upgrade will it be a "free" road and signed as US-69 or be a new turnpike running parallel to US-69?

You'd think they'd be pursuing this more as opposed to the I-57 extension since it's a shorter route. But alas, I guess we'll have to settle for I-57/30 as the direct Chicago-Dallas route (which honestly, I like better anyway. It allows you to bypass St. Louis and pay no tolls).

Traffic along that route, particularly semi truck traffic, is really heavy. There are few non-Interstate routes elsewhere in the country that have truck traffic levels like this. CA-58 in California between Barstow and Bakersfield (which really needs to be an extension of I-40) is the only obvious example that comes to mind.

As per OK state politics, I agree the "lawmakers" calling the shots in the State Capitol are laying the ground work for an exodus of young adults, especially young women. They're playing a short-term game, pandering to older, white, conservative voters and not thinking one bit about the long term effect that game will have on the state's economy. Any young couple wanting to raise a family would be stupidly insane to do so in Oklahoma under the current conditions. Those couples who are able to move to another state will have every incentive to do so. Young couples who cannot afford to leave will have every incentive not to have children.

"Lawmakers" have designs on dismantling the public school sector and privatizing it (big tax cuts for home owners and death to "socialist" public schools). Who cares if the average young couple can't afford unregulated, sky high private school tuition rates? "Lawmakers" just dealt a blow to single working mothers with their cuts to Earned Income Credit. They're doing all they can to make health insurance coverage affordable to only the biggest companies and most wealthy individuals. They want to eliminate a woman's right to choose, yet make it punishingly expensive for young working families to have children. It goes on and on. So all this bluster I hear from these guys "looking out for the American Family," is a whole lot of crap.

Every state economy depends on a steady supply of skilled young people entering the work force. Young workers are vital to supporting the tax base, pension systems and many other elements of the broader economy. Retired workers draw more from the system than pay into it, but boy do they show up to the election polls! Oklahoma is already a flyover state as it is. Under this game plan it will end up as a totally broke, deteriorating, aging and dying flyover state.

But once that process is complete, towns like Atoka and Muskogee will have lots of empty, abandoned properties easy enough to clear and make way for an I-45 extension. The extension would be more to the benefit of Texas & Mexico traffic heading to the Northeast US anyway. So if the towns along the way in OK are dead and dying it will make building that road so much more easy!
:-P

This may have been said someplace, but I can't find it: I think I-45 could be extended up the US 69 corridor all the way to Kansas City. 69 is already a freeway in SE Kansas.

And then (although this is getting into fictional highways territory) I-35 could replace I-29 north from there, and I-45 can replace current I-35.

I agree that having I-45 would provide a way to bypass OKC at high speed if you're traveling from Dallas to St. Louis/Chicago and vice versa, but what about the route to Kansas City? With I-49 already in place, I really don't see any reason to build an Interstate along US 69, except for pork barrel purposes.

Even at 2 a.m. it is highly unlikely you can make it through Okmulgee and Henryetta without stopping.  That doesn't even include Weleekta, Wetumka, Coalgate, Atoka, etc.

Quote from Bobby5280:

QuoteAs per OK state politics, I agree the "lawmakers" calling the shots in the State Capitol are laying the ground work for an exodus of young adults, especially young women. They're playing a short-term game, pandering to older, white, conservative voters and not thinking one bit about the long term effect that game will have on the state's economy. Any young couple wanting to raise a family would be stupidly insane to do so in Oklahoma under the current conditions. Those couples who are able to move to another state will have every incentive to do so. Young couples who cannot afford to leave will have every incentive not to have children.

"Lawmakers" have designs on dismantling the public school sector and privatizing it (big tax cuts for home owners and death to "socialist" public schools). Who cares if the average young couple can't afford unregulated, sky high private school tuition rates? "Lawmakers" just dealt a blow to single working mothers with their cuts to Earned Income Credit. They're doing all they can to make health insurance coverage affordable to only the biggest companies and most wealthy individuals. They want to eliminate a woman's right to choose, yet make it punishingly expensive for young working families to have children. It goes on and on. So all this bluster I hear from these guys "looking out for the American Family," is a whole lot of crap.

Every state economy depends on a steady supply of skilled young people entering the work force. Young workers are vital to supporting the tax base, pension systems and many other elements of the broader economy. Retired workers draw more from the system than pay into it, but boy do they show up to the election polls! Oklahoma is already a flyover state as it is. Under this game plan it will end up as a totally broke, deteriorating, aging and dying flyover state.

I like what you said. I have always felt that the people in charge, and as a result, the entire system in general, are unfair to young people. I t sucks that all the people in charge are selfish old people that don't give two fucks about the younger generation.

Young people can't even afford to move out on their own because rent is astronomically high, because of greedy older people making it that way.
The education system is a dysfunctional scam designed to take advantage of and rip off young people. Its just a shame that most young people are too blind to see this. They should be raising hell.

I have strong disdain towards the older generation for their behavior over the decades and how their selfishness has made this country a shithole for the younger generation.

Quote from: Brian556 on June 12, 2017, 11:52:31 AM
Young people can't even afford to move out on their own because rent is astronomically high, because of greedy older people making it that way.
The education system is a dysfunctional scam designed to take advantage of and rip off young people. Its just a shame that most young people are too blind to see this. They should be raising hell.

It seems like the most recent iterations of "conservatives" seem to be intending to set up certain jurisdictions -- and certainly the state of Oklahoma qualifies as a target -- as virtual "reservations" for followers of a mindset that thinks that anything introduced after about 1962-63 is an affront to their sociopolitical sensibilities (both ecumenical and secular).  From all appearances and evidence these folks would have rather avoided, in no particular order, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Pill, anything expanding individual rights (except for gun ownership & use), the Department of Education (they'll take USDOT with a grain of salt!), HUD, female congresspersons other than previous officeholders' widows, most of cable TV, popular music post-early-Elvis, the Summer of Love (duh!), moderate Republicans, yadda yadda.........!!!!  They've always been around, but now they've managed to convince enough gullible people to cobble up a working voting bloc and vote against their own interests!  And much of this is due to media manipulation -- repeating the same bullshit until it becomes the de facto truth to an audience that has been inured to seek simple answers to what are, for better or worse, complex problems.   The reality is that at this point in time we can't revert to pre-1963 sensibilities; at minimum a working plurality of the country no longer even pays lip service to many of the a priori standards promulgated prior to that time; the media and information expansion over the past half-century has taken care of that!  I doubted the concept when I first read it in the mid-'60's, but perhaps Marshall McLuhan was right -- the medium -- or control thereof -- has indeed become the prevailing message (no thanks to the likes of Fox News and even CNN for contributing to this phenomenon).  Maybe the political majority in Oklahoma may wish to shape their state as a shining beacon pointing to the past as future, but all they'll do in the longer run is to make a sizeable number of lives miserable (or at best really inconvenient) until their misadventures catch up with them.  The "dictatorship of the proletariat" eventually resulted in the downfall of the socialized state; the "dictatorship of the self-righteous" will likely be the bête noire of this particular ideological bent. 

And then maybe a few purse strings will loose and US 69 will indeed become a northern extension of I-45.  In the meantime, we'll all just have to push for the I-49 and the nascent I-57 corridors to be completed to effect relatively efficient egress from Texas to the upper Midwest and Great Lakes areas!     

Well, I certainly didn't intend for this to get political................

I started this to discuss a potential extension of I-45 and now it's turned into a thread for people to vent their rage about Oklahoma politics.  :-|

Oklahoma's politics are why things like the present mixed-bag configuration of US-69 are in their current condition. They already started the process of converting US-69 in Oklahoma to a freeway. It's all freeway between the outskirts of McAlestser and Muskogee. The segment from Durant to Caddo is freeway quality. There are other short stretches of road where the main lanes are flanked by frontage roads or a wide median is available for building a future freeway. Obviously the state had some designs on converting this highway from the Red River to Big Cabin into a freeway. They just never finished the job.

And it's like this for so many other road projects in Oklahoma. The state has little if any sense of long term planning when it comes to highway corridors, whether they're roads needed for a metro area like OKC or a longer distance project beneficial to a multi-state region.

The Kilpatrick Turnpike is still just one-fourth of a loop highway around OKC more than 20 years after the road started getting built. It's growing ever more impossible to build any extensions of it. The proposed extension to Airport Road is a joke. But what else can they do? Planners were asleep at the wheel while the corridor directly South through Mustang got gobbled up by developers.

When they actually want to build something like a new road their concepts turn out to be a giant, head-scratching WTF. Like those proposed turnpikes from Duncan to Davis and Snyder to Clinton back in the 1990's. I have a few different ideas for new roads in the state, a couple of which would be great, beneficial additions to the overall Interstate highway system. But I don't know what kind of logic these guys were using to come up with those turnpike proposals. It all seemed like good ole boy network deal making crap rather than doing something that actually made any sense.

Quote from: I-39 on June 12, 2017, 07:09:21 PM
Well, I certainly didn't intend for this to get political................

I started this to discuss a potential extension of I-45 and now it's turned into a thread for people to vent their rage about Oklahoma politics.  :-|

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 13, 2017, 12:18:46 AM
Oklahoma's politics are why things like the present mixed-bag configuration of US-69 are in their current condition. They already started the process of converting US-69 in Oklahoma to a freeway. It's all freeway between the outskirts of McAlestser and Muskogee. The segment from Durant to Caddo is freeway quality. There are other short stretches of road where the main lanes are flanked by frontage roads or a wide median is available for building a future freeway. Obviously the state had some designs on converting this highway from the Red River to Big Cabin into a freeway. They just never finished the job.

And it's like this for so many other road projects in Oklahoma. The state has little if any sense of long term planning when it comes to highway corridors, whether they're roads needed for a metro area like OKC or a longer distance project beneficial to a multi-state region.

The Kilpatrick Turnpike is still just one-fourth of a loop highway around OKC more than 20 years after the road started getting built. It's growing ever more impossible to build any extensions of it. The proposed extension to Airport Road is a joke. But what else can they do? Planners were asleep at the wheel while the corridor directly South through Mustang got gobbled up by developers.

When they actually want to build something like a new road their concepts turn out to be a giant, head-scratching WTF. Like those proposed turnpikes from Duncan to Davis and Snyder to Clinton back in the 1990's. I have a few different ideas for new roads in the state, a couple of which would be great, beneficial additions to the overall Interstate highway system. But I don't know what kind of logic these guys were using to come up with those turnpike proposals. It all seemed like good ole boy network deal making crap rather than doing something that actually made any sense.

Whether at the state or federal level, politics invariably intrudes on transportation planning efforts.  But only part of that manifests itself as active opposition to projects; by and large it's a simple matter of priority reductionism.  Regarding OK -- as long as the attention of those who have been in charge of state matters for the last generation is focused on other items within a specific agenda, transportation -- which for the most part doesn't receive a lot of social-policy activity outside urban circles or environmentally fragile areas -- doesn't pose the opportunity for ideologues to further that agenda, especially in a state like Oklahoma that features limited urbanization.  It's a typical Plains "red" state in that much of the political power still stems from rural areas and small towns (including speed traps!!!).  That doesn't bode well for large-scale statewide projects -- such as an upgrade of US 69 would be.  Transportation progress in this venue just won't occur until such time as due political (and fiscal) attention is paid to it -- period; and with the present bunch in charge, that probably won't come soon.     

I've done 69/75 several times late at night coming home from concerts in Dallas. I nearly got run over by two trucks south of Atoka heading back one rainy night. It needs to be improved. If you were the one to die in a collision, would you feel differently about it?

Bringing this topic back from the political abyss.....

ODOT has announced a public meeting regarding the proposed improvements to US69/75 in Calera:

https://www.ok.gov/triton/modules/newsroom/newsroom_article.php?id=277&article_id=33238

Quote
Public invited to discuss future US-69 project in Calera

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation is hosting a public meeting Thursday, June 15 in Calera to present information and gather public input on a proposed project to improve US-69 from Chickasaw Rd. near Calera to the US-70 Bypass near Durant in Bryan County.   

This project will help improve safety and efficiency for the significant freight traffic on the US-69/75 corridor by improving rail crossings and upgrading it to a controlled-access highway using on- and off-ramps and one way  frontage roads. The existing highway segment has numerous access points, including three signalized intersections and a rail crossing, which create traffic congestion and safety concerns.

A brief presentation will be made on the proposed improvements with ODOT officials available to answer questions following. All project materials will be available online following the meeting at www.odot.org/publicmeetings.

US-69 public meeting

Thursday, June 15
6 p.m.
Calera Public Schools Gymnasium
111 North 4th St.
Calera

Major funding for this project will come from a $62 million FASTLANE grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Transportation in June 2016. Construction is tentatively set to begin in FFY 2019.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 13, 2017, 02:31:43 PM
Freeways are a necessary evil for any major city. Major cities that haven't built any freeways are almost always in poor, third world countries.

For both London and Paris, there are many freeways leading there, but they all end before reaching the center. (London seems to have interchanges on its A roads even where there are no motorways, but Paris seems not to have grade separation near the city center.)

In the case of Paris, the Boulevard Périphérique loop wraps around the historic (and very densely packed) center of the city. The loop comes within 3 miles of the city's center, which is pretty close. There is a whole lot of Paris and metro Paris outside of that loop. English Motorways are spaced farther from London's city center, but there is a lot of controlled interchanges near the city center. It also should be stressed that super highways have only been added to old cities like Madrid in recent times. The super highways end where they do not out of some anti-freeway ideology. They just can't be built any farther into the city without causing massive disruptions and destroying a lot of historic architecture.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 13, 2017, 03:27:01 PMIn the case of Paris, the Boulevard Périphérique loop wraps around the historic (and very densely packed) center of the city. The loop comes within 3 miles of the city's center, which is pretty close. There is a whole lot of Paris and metro Paris outside of that loop.

The only bits of the Parisian city limits outside the BP are woods that are deliberately free of urban development - it (or rather the older transport corridor it follows) is the definition of it. The BP does fit within a 4 mile radius circle and there is a lot of the urban area outside.

QuoteEnglish Motorways are spaced farther from London's city center, but there is a lot of controlled interchanges near the city center.

I think there's a total of 4 on (3) or within (1) the Inner Ring Road that have some form of grade-separation. Within 3 miles of the city centre there's 5. A 4 mile radius adds another and a 5 mile radius gives a total of 11. Of which there is one 2-in-a-row, and one 3-in-a-row. 6 miles adds another 11 to turn the 3-in-a-row to a 4 and the 2 in a row into a 7, as well as giving another 2-in-a-row, but the other 9 don't link up to others.

The 7-in-a-row gets to the (freeway-esque) North Circular at it's north end, before hitting a roundabout, and has just one set of lights at it's south end between there and the wider world. The 4-in-a-row has several traffic-light controlled junctions. The 2-in-a-row is the start of something (though doesn't connect to other freeways without hitting a roundabout).

QuoteThe super highways end where they do not out of some anti-freeway ideology. They just can't be built any farther into the city without causing massive disruptions and destroying a lot of historic architecture.

Both Paris and London had freeway revolts, Paris just happened to get more done and be willing to employ tunnelling and such like in later years to build a network.

London on it's north bank and Paris on both its banks managed to get high capacity roads built along their major rivers in the 60s and are rather regretting it (London has taken a lot of the road space to make a cycle route, Paris is planning on changing it), because they are in prime tourist spots and pass a lot of history nearby - here (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5013831,-0.1240484,3a,75y,182.23h,98.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spaqDB_OVhOb_WL8uNXDGoA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)'s how the London one used to end before they gave it a diet, and here (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5094417,-0.0781017,3a,75y,114.62h,79.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjU0eK_DiaAGAZeCJf_v2QQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)'s the other end also from 2008 (as earliest GMSV - the changes didn't come until ~2015) - note the World Heritage Sites!

Madrid is a city that makes US cities famous for freeways everywhere look like they half-assed their network, so it might be true there that it was only history that stopped it.

Honestly, Detroit could rip up all its freeways and still be fine.

The problem is that not all cities are like Detroit. Many have crappy arterial systems. In cities like these, freeways are necessary for good traffic flow.

Quote from: bugo on June 13, 2017, 03:57:28 AMIf you were the one to die in a collision, would you feel differently about it?

I'm sure that if you were in a fatal accident, upgrading the highway would be the last thing to cross your mind.  :)

It will be interesting to see what happens in Oklahoma politically over the next two or three years. Keep an eye on Kansas to the north–there's been a major backlash against Brownback's policies, which has lead to Republicans finally switching course and raising taxes. Whether Oklahoma echoes this backlash depends on the timing of the straw that breaks the camel's back. Governor Fallin is term-limited in 2018, so it remains to be seen if there's an abrupt Brownback-style repudiation of her financial policies or if there's a softer transition when a new governor takes up residence on 23rd Street.

Longtime OKC mayor Mick Cornett has announced a run for Governor–assuming he both gets the nomination (which is plausible) and doesn't break with his mayoral positions and makes a hard-right tack, we should see the election produce a more moderate state government no matter which party takes the Governor's Mansion. Cornett frequently found himself working at cross purposes from Fallin (e.g. when Oklahoma City passed an ordinance to raise the minimum wage in the city limits and Fallin quickly signed a bill blocking any city from doing so).

Of course, if Cornett both loses the nomination and is unsuccessful in dragging the primary toward the center, or he entirely discards the principles he followed as mayor in order to gain the nomination, all bets are off. I am immensely hopeful that his involvement in the race, together with the developments in Kansas, will result in moderating the state government in the medium term.

QuotePryor Creek

This is how it's listed on some maps, and is its official name, but it is never called that and is never signed as such. It's just Pryor. (Likewise, the county seat of Washita County is never called New Cordell, just Cordell, since old Cordell is a ghost town at best.)

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 14, 2017, 04:11:36 AM
It will be interesting to see what happens in Oklahoma politically over the next two or three years.

Longtime OKC mayor Mick Cornett has announced a run for Governor–assuming he both gets the nomination (which is plausible) and doesn't break with his mayoral positions and makes a hard-right tack, we should see the election produce a more moderate state government no matter which party takes the Governor's Mansion.

I suspect Mayor Mick will have a dogfight on his hands with current Lt Gov Todd Lamb already in the race.  We sometimes forget that Mick is not well-known outside of the OKC metro area.  The current political atmosphere means that it has become nearly impossible to be a centrist and win a statewide election.  Besides, as Fallin has demonstrated, the Governor has little say (other than the veto) over what the Legislature does budget-wise.  Usually, her proposed budgets were DOA the minute they were printed.  As a native Oklahoman, I am very pessimistic about the 2018 elections.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 13, 2017, 02:31:43 PM
New terrain bypasses would be necessary for Tushka, Atoka, Stringtown, Kiowa, Savanna, Wagoner, Chouteau, Pryor Creek, Adair and even Big Cabin itself (where the highway would need a new freeway to freeway interchange with I-44). Muskogee would need a new Western bypass for US-69. Freeway quality bypasses don't always need frontage roads flanking them. Frontage roads are most often necessary when an existing highway going through an already developed area is upgraded into a freeway. It would be too disruptive to convert US-69 into a freeway along its existing route through those towns.

It should hook into the US 69 freeway south of Muskogee and head basically due north and a little to the east and hook into I-44 near the Rogers-Mayes county line. That would save some miles of new construction and wouldn't increase the distance from Muskogee to Miami by very much.

The far right wing that dominates the Republican party with an iron fist ridicules Moderate, Centrist Republicans every bit as harshly as they ridicule any Democrat. The term "cuck" (applied to any Republican who compromises toward the middle ground even in the slightest) sounds much more offensive and pejorative than insulting labels for liberals like "libtard" and "snowflake." The sheer level of bile and hatred the far right has for anyone in the center has forced many Republicans to adopt far right ideologies out of fear.

Of course I have little if any sympathy for a Republican who fears being called a cuckservative. Such politicians are more interested in preserving their re-election hopes rather than standing up for what they believe.

Just for the sake of equal time, the left-wing of the Democratic party has its own problems with forcing its members farther to the left. They're just as out of touch with so much of the nation's voters as those in the "alt-right." If the Democratic party doesn't start trying to appeal to the interests of voters in "flyover country," they're not going to have any sort of great victory in 2018. It will be more of the same, with more state legislatures becoming ever more dominated by the Republican Party.

I think the Democrats have very little hope in Oklahoma's 2018 elections. Just look at the comments section on any politically oriented news story online or in a Facebook discussion group. The Republican Party has turned Oklahoma into a shit show over the past several years, but the vast majority of this state's voters think Oklahoma's misfortunes are all the fault of Obama, Democrats and Black people on welfare. They don't place any blame whatsoever for Oklahoma's busted budget on the Republicans. And they're going to keep voting Republican and voting for more of the same in 2018. Idiots.

The Democrats need to reach out to the progressive bloc if they expect to win elections in the future. They disenchanted them in the 2016 election and that's what got them beat. Embrace progressivism because it is the future of left-wing politics and if the Dems don't welcome progressives they will start their own party. The establishment Democrats cannot sustain their current model. The conservative Democrat is rapidly aging and younger voters tend to be much more progressive than the Clintonian Democrats. The Democratic Party has moved too far to the right in an attempt to compete with Republicans. If they want to win elections then they have to quit being Repub-lite and stand on their own feet.

Actually I disagree with that assessment. The Democratic Party has hopelessly lost touch with white working class voters. It's as simple as that. Many of those working class voters were Union dues-paying people, but not really any longer. But those working class folks are still the "little guys" Democrats claim to represent.

Here in flyover country most working class people think the Democrats only care about upwardly mobile yuppies in coastal cities like New York and San Francisco. I personally agree with drawing a tough hard line to protect the environment or stand up for the rights of minorities. But there's also too much old style Democrat cronyism creeping into government workings. There is a good point to be made about streamlining bureaucracy and simplifying regulations. Everyone on this board likes big highways, especially brand new ones. Well, there's a hell of a lot of regulations and legal red tape adding up to totally kill this nation's ability to build big things. Construction companies that want to build some big new highway have to produce giant volumes of crap very few people are going to read more than once or twice. A bunch of this paperwork crap seems to only be there to keep a good number of people in their jobs. The red tape isn't producing anything productive.

Okies aren't like New Yorkers. They want to be left alone. The Democrats on the coasts don't understand this. Give me single payer health care, medicinal marijuana, better schools, common-sense gun laws and better roads and leave me alone. Raise the taxes on the oil industry, which has literally been sucking the state dry for years. Most of my friends from Oklahoma who are 50 or younger want these same things. Bernie Sanders won the state. This group is bigger than the media will admit. It is the future. I think things will get better in the future as it's mostly the old churchgoers who don't want these things and they're dying off. It will take a while though,

Quote from: bugo on June 14, 2017, 03:40:20 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 13, 2017, 02:31:43 PM
New terrain bypasses would be necessary for Tushka, Atoka, Stringtown, Kiowa, Savanna, Wagoner, Chouteau, Pryor Creek, Adair and even Big Cabin itself (where the highway would need a new freeway to freeway interchange with I-44). Muskogee would need a new Western bypass for US-69. Freeway quality bypasses don't always need frontage roads flanking them. Frontage roads are most often necessary when an existing highway going through an already developed area is upgraded into a freeway. It would be too disruptive to convert US-69 into a freeway along its existing route through those towns.

It should hook into the US 69 freeway south of Muskogee and head basically due north and a little to the east and hook into I-44 near the Rogers-Mayes county line. That would save some miles of new construction and wouldn't increase the distance from Muskogee to Miami by very much.

Wow!  Did I open one fat can of worms with my original rant about OK political stagnation and distraction.  In retrospect, sorry about that!  Maybe this'll get it back to the original subject:

If a western bypass of the Muskogee area would be considered, then why not just diverge from the US 69 alignment somewhere near the big curve between Rentiesville and Oktaha and head more or less straight north to the Muskogee Turnpike near the OK 51 interchange east of Coweta.  That way the facility could serve Tulsa as well (since the probability of upgrading US 75 north of the INT is slim & none) as well as provide, via the Creek Turnpike, a path to eastward I-44.  A little bit out of the way -- but probably economically more feasible than poking a through route all the way north to Big Cabin.  The Muskogee Turnpike would require expansion between OK 51 and OK 364/Creek Tpk -- but at least the ROW's already there to do so.  Just an observation!

Quote from: sparkerIf a western bypass of the Muskogee area would be considered, then why not just diverge from the US 69 alignment somewhere near the big curve between Rentiesville and Oktaha and head more or less straight north to the Muskogee Turnpike near the OK 51 interchange east of Coweta. That way the facility could serve Tulsa as well (since the probability of upgrading US 75 north of the INT is slim & none) as well as provide, via the Creek Turnpike, a path to eastward I-44. A little bit out of the way -- but probably economically more feasible than poking a through route all the way north to Big Cabin.  The Muskogee Turnpike would require expansion between OK 51 and OK 364/Creek Tpk -- but at least the ROW's already there to do so. Just an observation!

That might be a work-able solution if the road was going to be built as a turnpike. I think one of the reasons why US-69 is so clogged with truck traffic is truckers are using that road to shun-pike the Turner Turnpike and half of the Will Rogers Turnpike.

US-69 does little to serve Tulsa other than pull long-haul trucks away from it. Scooting a new super highway 15 miles or so West of Muskogee isn't going to make much difference for Tulsa metro traffic. I don't think businesses in Muskogee would like their town getting bypassed so far away either. I'm think a new terrain US-69/I-45 bypass of Muskogee could work 3 or 4 miles West of town, starting at the bend South of town near Summit.

As for upgrading US-75 North of the Indian Nation Turnpike to Interstate quality, I think it's still do-able. Some properties would have to be cleared in Henryetta and Olkmulgee would have to be bypassed.

To get this topic back on track before it is locked, I will mention that there is an active project on US69 in McAlester to create grade separations south of the US270 interchange.

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/contracts/a2016/plans1609/250_1509_ACNHPP-013N(017)SS_1499904/000%20FULL%20FILE.pdf
WARNING:  This is a 192 page .pdf.

The bid was awarded in September 2016 for $ 13,420,172.08 to KOSS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY & SUBSIDIARY.  Project length is scheduled for 385 days and was to begin on February 13, 2017 (according to the latest "Projects Under Construction" report.  I seem to recall the next step is to complete the grade separations from there south to the junction with US69B.  I'll see if I can find something on that.

^^

Are those improvements being done to Interstate standards?

Quote from: I-39 on June 21, 2017, 10:49:49 PM
^^

Are those improvements being done to Interstate standards?

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2015/151105/presentation.pdf

Quote from: rte66man on June 22, 2017, 09:33:45 AM

Quote from: I-39 on June 21, 2017, 10:49:49 PM
^^

Are those improvements being done to Interstate standards?

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2015/151105/presentation.pdf

Pretty much looks like it.  10' outer shoulders, 4' inner; just made it!  Don't start celebrating now -- from there south to the Atoka/Bryan county line won't see anything similar in the near term.  It's a start (as with the projects south of Durant), but just that; don't read too much into it!

Quote from: sparker on June 22, 2017, 04:21:41 PM

Quote from: rte66man on June 22, 2017, 09:33:45 AM

Quote from: I-39 on June 21, 2017, 10:49:49 PM
^^

Are those improvements being done to Interstate standards?

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2015/151105/presentation.pdf

Pretty much looks like it.  10' outer shoulders, 4' inner; just made it!  Don't start celebrating now -- from there south to the Atoka/Bryan county line won't see anything similar in the near term.  It's a start (as with the projects south of Durant), but just that; don't read too much into it!

69 is being resurfaced south of McAlester, but I've seen no signs of upgrading to full interchanges

Quote from: US71 on June 23, 2017, 09:55:30 AM

Quote from: sparker on June 22, 2017, 04:21:41 PM

Quote from: rte66man on June 22, 2017, 09:33:45 AM

Quote from: I-39 on June 21, 2017, 10:49:49 PM
^^

Are those improvements being done to Interstate standards?

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2015/151105/presentation.pdf

Pretty much looks like it.  10' outer shoulders, 4' inner; just made it!  Don't start celebrating now -- from there south to the Atoka/Bryan county line won't see anything similar in the near term.  It's a start (as with the projects south of Durant), but just that; don't read too much into it!

69 is being resurfaced south of McAlester, but I've seen no signs of upgrading to full interchanges

They'd likely have to build a fair amount of new alignment segments between McAlester and south of Tushka if they ever wanted to go full freeway. 

from ODOT:

Traffic Advisories
Tuesday, July 18, 2017

US-69 frontage road closes at Comanche Ave., Comanche Ave. narrows to one lane July 20

The northbound US-69 frontage road will be closed at Comanche Ave. and Comanche Ave. will be narrowed to one lane with flaggers at US-69 from 10 p.m. Thursday, July 20 to 6 a.m. Friday July 21 to install a drainage pipe as part of an ongoing project. 

US-69 narrowed at Comanche Ave. in McAlester through spring 2018

Northbound US-69 is narrowed to one lane over Wade Watts Ave. just north of Comanche Ave. through early August for bridge work as part of the project to reconstruct US-69. Additionally, access to Wade Watts Ave. and Kiamichi Dr. is closed from the US-69 frontage road through mid-August.

This is the first phase of a $13 million project to reconstruct US-69 from Peaceable Rd. to Wade Watts Ave. in McAlester. In addition to the reconstruction of  US-69, this project includes:

Widening the US-69 bridges over Wade Watts Ave. and the Arkansas-Oklahoma Railroad;
Constructing on and off-ramps from US-69 to the frontage roads near Wade Watts Ave.;
Adding a J-turn on US-69 to the northbound frontage road between Peaceable Rd. and Kinkead Rd.;
Removing the signalized light at Peaceable Rd. and Comanche Rd. and permanently closing direct access to these roads from US-69; and
A complete overlay and re-striping of the frontage roads from Kinkead Rd. to Peaceable Rd.

This project is expected to be completed in March 2018. Motorists can subscribe for email updates or check for traffic advisories online at www.odot.org. The contractor can earn financial incentives for early completion of the project.

A second project scheduled for federal fiscal year 2019 will reconstruct US-69 from Kinkead Rd. to Peaceable Ave. including the north and southbound frontage roads and will construct an interchange at Kinkead Rd.

Quote from: rte66man on July 18, 2017, 04:58:40 PM
from ODOT:

Traffic Advisories
Tuesday, July 18, 2017

US-69 frontage road closes at Comanche Ave., Comanche Ave. narrows to one lane July 20

The northbound US-69 frontage road will be closed at Comanche Ave. and Comanche Ave. will be narrowed to one lane with flaggers at US-69 from 10 p.m. Thursday, July 20 to 6 a.m. Friday July 21 to install a drainage pipe as part of an ongoing project. 

US-69 narrowed at Comanche Ave. in McAlester through spring 2018

Northbound US-69 is narrowed to one lane over Wade Watts Ave. just north of Comanche Ave. through early August for bridge work as part of the project to reconstruct US-69. Additionally, access to Wade Watts Ave. and Kiamichi Dr. is closed from the US-69 frontage road through mid-August.

This is the first phase of a $13 million project to reconstruct US-69 from Peaceable Rd. to Wade Watts Ave. in McAlester. In addition to the reconstruction of  US-69, this project includes:

Widening the US-69 bridges over Wade Watts Ave. and the Arkansas-Oklahoma Railroad;
Constructing on and off-ramps from US-69 to the frontage roads near Wade Watts Ave.;
Adding a J-turn on US-69 to the northbound frontage road between Peaceable Rd. and Kinkead Rd.;
Removing the signalized light at Peaceable Rd. and Comanche Rd. and permanently closing direct access to these roads from US-69; and
A complete overlay and re-striping of the frontage roads from Kinkead Rd. to Peaceable Rd.

This project is expected to be completed in March 2018. Motorists can subscribe for email updates or check for traffic advisories online at www.odot.org. The contractor can earn financial incentives for early completion of the project.

A second project scheduled for federal fiscal year 2019 will reconstruct US-69 from Kinkead Rd. to Peaceable Ave. including the north and southbound frontage roads and will construct an interchange at Kinkead Rd.

Any maps of the affected areas available for viewing?

Just go full freeway in the McAlester area already!

They are for part of the project.

Quote from: sparker on July 19, 2017, 04:43:36 PM

Quote from: rte66man on July 18, 2017, 04:58:40 PM
from ODOT:

Traffic Advisories
Tuesday, July 18, 2017

US-69 frontage road closes at Comanche Ave., Comanche Ave. narrows to one lane July 20

The northbound US-69 frontage road will be closed at Comanche Ave. and Comanche Ave. will be narrowed to one lane with flaggers at US-69 from 10 p.m. Thursday, July 20 to 6 a.m. Friday July 21 to install a drainage pipe as part of an ongoing project. 

US-69 narrowed at Comanche Ave. in McAlester through spring 2018

Northbound US-69 is narrowed to one lane over Wade Watts Ave. just north of Comanche Ave. through early August for bridge work as part of the project to reconstruct US-69. Additionally, access to Wade Watts Ave. and Kiamichi Dr. is closed from the US-69 frontage road through mid-August.

This is the first phase of a $13 million project to reconstruct US-69 from Peaceable Rd. to Wade Watts Ave. in McAlester. In addition to the reconstruction of  US-69, this project includes:

Widening the US-69 bridges over Wade Watts Ave. and the Arkansas-Oklahoma Railroad;
Constructing on and off-ramps from US-69 to the frontage roads near Wade Watts Ave.;
Adding a J-turn on US-69 to the northbound frontage road between Peaceable Rd. and Kinkead Rd.;
Removing the signalized light at Peaceable Rd. and Comanche Rd. and permanently closing direct access to these roads from US-69; and
A complete overlay and re-striping of the frontage roads from Kinkead Rd. to Peaceable Rd.

This project is expected to be completed in March 2018. Motorists can subscribe for email updates or check for traffic advisories online at www.odot.org. The contractor can earn financial incentives for early completion of the project.

A second project scheduled for federal fiscal year 2019 will reconstruct US-69 from Kinkead Rd. to Peaceable Ave. including the north and southbound frontage roads and will construct an interchange at Kinkead Rd.

Any maps of the affected areas available for viewing?

See Reply #75 upthread.

Quote from: rte66man on July 20, 2017, 09:16:50 AM

Quote from: sparker on July 19, 2017, 04:43:36 PM
Any maps of the affected areas available for viewing?

See Reply #75 upthread.

Thanks; forgot about the illustrations in the presentation.  Well, it's a start -- and takes care of a major-town impediment.  I would imagine, given the track record of the smaller towns along US 69 and/or 75 regarding bypassing -- coupled with the state's current political/fiscal issues -- that improvements to this corridor will be limited to this plus already-planned/programmed projects from Durant south to the state line -- at least for the near term.

Just repost the link.

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2015/151105/presentation.pdf

Traffic Advisories
Friday, November 3, 2017

Intersections close, frontage roads change to one lane on US-69 in McAlester

The project below is weather permitting:

Drivers can expect the following changes on US-69 in McAlester as part of an ongoing reconstruction project:

The US-69 and Peaceable Rd. intersection is permanently closed
The US-69 frontage road on the east side of the highway will be northbound only between Village Blvd. and Wade Watts Ave. beginning Nov. 8
The US-69 frontage roads on the west side of the highway will be southbound only between Wade Watts Ave. and Peaceable Rd. beginning Nov. 8
Direct access to US-69 from Comanche Ave., Osage Ave. and Wade Watts Ave. will be closed beginning Nov. 8, drivers should use the frontage roads
The newly constructed US-69 on- and off-ramps at Wade Watts Ave. will be open beginning Nov. 8
Southbound US-69 is narrowed to one lane over Wade Watts Ave. just north of Comanche Ave. until further notice


This is the first phase of a $13 million project to reconstruct US-69 from Peaceable Rd. to north of Comanche Ave. in McAlester. In addition to the reconstruction of  US-69, this project includes:

Widening the US-69 bridges over Wade Watts Ave. and the Arkansas-Oklahoma Railroad;
Constructing on and off-ramps from US-69 to the frontage roads near Wade Watts Ave.;
Adding a J-turn on US-69 to the northbound frontage road between Peaceable Rd. and Kinkead Rd.;
Removing the signalized light at Peaceable Rd. and Comanche Rd. and permanently closing direct access to these roads from US-69; and
A complete overlay and re-striping of the frontage roads from Kinkead Rd. to Peaceable Rd.
This project is expected to be completed in Spring 2018. Motorists can subscribe for email updates or check for traffic advisories online at www.odot.org. The contractor can earn financial incentives for early completion of the project.

Quote from: rte66man on November 07, 2017, 05:44:46 PM
Traffic Advisories
Friday, November 3, 2017

Intersections close, frontage roads change to one lane on US-69 in McAlester

The project below is weather permitting:

Drivers can expect the following changes on US-69 in McAlester as part of an ongoing reconstruction project:

The US-69 and Peaceable Rd. intersection is permanently closed
The US-69 frontage road on the east side of the highway will be northbound only between Village Blvd. and Wade Watts Ave. beginning Nov. 8
The US-69 frontage roads on the west side of the highway will be southbound only between Wade Watts Ave. and Peaceable Rd. beginning Nov. 8
Direct access to US-69 from Comanche Ave., Osage Ave. and Wade Watts Ave. will be closed beginning Nov. 8, drivers should use the frontage roads
The newly constructed US-69 on- and off-ramps at Wade Watts Ave. will be open beginning Nov. 8
Southbound US-69 is narrowed to one lane over Wade Watts Ave. just north of Comanche Ave. until further notice


This is the first phase of a $13 million project to reconstruct US-69 from Peaceable Rd. to north of Comanche Ave. in McAlester. In addition to the reconstruction of  US-69, this project includes:

Widening the US-69 bridges over Wade Watts Ave. and the Arkansas-Oklahoma Railroad;
Constructing on and off-ramps from US-69 to the frontage roads near Wade Watts Ave.;
Adding a J-turn on US-69 to the northbound frontage road between Peaceable Rd. and Kinkead Rd.;
Removing the signalized light at Peaceable Rd. and Comanche Rd. and permanently closing direct access to these roads from US-69; and
A complete overlay and re-striping of the frontage roads from Kinkead Rd. to Peaceable Rd.
This project is expected to be completed in Spring 2018. Motorists can subscribe for email updates or check for traffic advisories online at www.odot.org. The contractor can earn financial incentives for early completion of the project.

I'll have to pass that to the Jefferson Highway folks.

Does anyone have an update regarding the US-69/75 Calera upgrade? OkDOT has said construction is to start in 2019 and I haven't a hear a peep about it for over a year now.

https://www.ok.gov/triton/modules/newsroom/newsroom_article.php?id=277&article_id=23200

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 12, 2019, 04:54:04 PM
Does anyone have an update regarding the US-69/75 Calera upgrade? OkDOT has said construction is to start in 2019 and I haven't a hear a peep about it for over a year now.

https://www.ok.gov/triton/modules/newsroom/newsroom_article.php?id=277&article_id=23200

I'll see if I can sneak down there in the next couple days.

The only bid award announcement I've seen was last October's award of a ROW clearance contract.

Quote from: rte66man on February 13, 2019, 06:13:28 AM
The only bid award announcement I've seen was last October's award of a ROW clearance contract.

OkDOT's recent monthly commission wrap up report outlined the federal government shutdowns impact and claimed some projects were going to be delayed by up to a year. I sure hope this isn't one of those projects. It was reliant on federal funding and I'm unsure if it affects the nesting season of migratory birds. This project needed to happen yesterday, was really hoping to drive through a construction zone here during the summer.

Woo hoo!!

From the April 2019 Tentative Bid Openings:

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7899/47190062792_f813bc713d.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2eU2pAh)

Good deal! This is exciting.

"From the South end of Calera up to the US-70 interchange:" thing that make you go "hmmm." Could that mean they're going to address the traffic signal at Hollis Roberts Road in front of Choctaw Casino?

I really hope they convert that intersection into a freeway exit. I think there is enough room to build a narrow profile diamond exit.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 28, 2019, 08:30:19 PM
"From the South end of Calera up to the US-70 interchange:" thing that make you go "hmmm." Could that mean they're going to address the traffic signal at Hollis Roberts Road in front of Choctaw Casino?

I really hope they convert that intersection into a freeway exit. I think there is enough room to build a narrow profile diamond exit.

The plans show a grade separated interchange.

Another reason to bring I-45 here...

Quote from: rte66manThe plans show a grade separated interchange.

Hooray!

Quote from: HenryAnother reason to bring I-45 here...

The Calera US-69/75 upgrade project will be another step in that direction. But there will still be plenty of work to do just to make it possible to sign I-45 up to the US-70 bypass in Durant.

Putting an interchange at Hollis Robert Road would take care of one big obstacle. There's at least 10 at-grade intersections crossing the US-69/75 main lanes between where the current freeway ends in Colbert and where the project in Calera will begin. Most of those at-grade intersections can be cut off by frontage roads, perhaps with a couple bridges and exits at E2140 Rd and Platter Cutoff Rd.

Then there's the issue of improving shoulders on the US-69/75 main lanes. I can't tell if the US-69 bridges at the OK-91 exit in Colbert are up to Interstate standards. Same goes for some of the entrance/exit ramps on that stretch of freeway. Meanwhile TX DOT is continuing to take care of deficiencies with US-69/75 on their side of the Red River.

Press release from ODOT today:

https://www.ok.gov/triton/modules/newsroom/newsroom_article.php?id=277&article_id=23200

Quote
US-69/75 Reconstruction in Bryan County - FASTLANE Grant

ODOT is excited to announce the beginning of a new project that improves US-69/US-75 in Southeastern Oklahoma. The Federal FASTLANE grant, awarded by the U.S. Department of Transportation, will help improve safety and efficiency for the significant freight traffic on the US-69/75 corridor by improving approximately four miles of existing highway from Chickasaw Rd. to US-70 in Durant. This grant will fund projects to upgrade US-69/75 to a controlled-access highway with grade separations and frontage roads, as well as improvements to rail crossings.

Construction could begin as early as late Fall 2019

The total cost of the project is $142 million with $62 million from the Federal Fast Lane Grant and $80 million from Oklahoma's Transportation Budget.
With a total cost of $142 this is Oklahoma's largest highway construction project in state history. The project will widen the highway, add a diamond interchange in the town of Calera and remove the problematic signalized intersections along the project's four mile length.

The current design featured input from the local communities and will address traffic concerns as far into the future as 2050.

The full FASTLANE grant application can be viewed at https://www.ok.gov/odot/Programs_and_Projects/Transportation_Programs/FASTLANE_Grants/US-69_and_US-75_Calera_Bryan_County.html

With public input being taken into consideration revisions to the project's design have been made. To find out more visit: http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2017/170615/preferred_1May19.pdf

The current design for the project can be veiwed here: http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2017/170615/ProjectDesignUpdate42919.pdf

Overall this is good news. The next thing is dealing with the remaining non-freeway gap between Platte Road and Chickasaw Road. That would appear to be an easier project since partial frontage roads already run parallel to US-69/75 on parts of that stretch.

The downside is Oklahoma is funding $80 million of this $142 million project. That's a long ways from the old 90/10 fed/state funding formula. Oklahoma's taxpayers need to put up some of the funding for this project, but this corridor is one of national, long-distance interest. Hence all the heavy trucks driving on it.

This is the largest highway construction project in state history? Where did they get that claim? I could have sworn the I-40 crosstown re-build in OKC was more expensive than this. It certainly was far more elaborate. We don't have quarter billion dollar directional stack interchange projects going up at all in Oklahoma, but this 4 mile project in Calera seems pretty modest.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 07, 2019, 03:46:51 PM
Overall this is good news. The next thing is dealing with the remaining non-freeway gap between Platte Road and Chickasaw Road. That would appear to be an easier project since partial frontage roads already run parallel to US-69/75 on parts of that stretch.

The downside is Oklahoma is funding $80 million of this $142 million project. That's a long ways from the old 90/10 fed/state funding formula. Oklahoma's taxpayers need to put up some of the funding for this project, but this corridor is one of national, long-distance interest. Hence all the heavy trucks driving on it.

This is the largest highway construction project in state history? Where did they get that claim? I could have sworn the I-40 crosstown re-build in OKC was more expensive than this. It certainly was far more elaborate. We don't have quarter billion dollar directional stack interchange projects going up at all in Oklahoma, but this 4 mile project in Calera seems pretty modest.

Largest in a single contract letting. The XTown was split up into numerous smaller jobs.

Calera US-69 freeway conversion project begins this fall:

QuotePress Releases
Monday, August 5, 2019

Big changes for US-69/75 as modernization project gets green light
August 5, 2019
PR# 19-030

After years of planning, countless hours in the design room and input from the public, the US-69/75 corridor in Bryan County is a giant step closer to a major reconstruction thanks to a federal FASTLANE Grant received in 2016.

The contract was awarded by the Oklahoma Transportation Commission at its August meeting to Duit Construction of Edmond at more than $150 million, with a significant $62 million coming from federal funds. This was the third largest grant awarded in the nation during the grant cycle and is one of the highest amounts of federally awarded grants in the department's history. The project has financial incentives for different milestones and early completion, made possible by the federal grant.

The estimated three-yearlong project is anticipated to start as early as fall 2019 and will improve four miles of this corridor just north of the Texas state line between Chickasaw Rd. in Calera and US-70 in Durant.

"We are seeing interstate levels of traffic in this area and the massive changes made by this project will transform it into a modern, expanded freight corridor,"  said Oklahoma Secretary of Transportation and Oklahoma Department of Transportation Executive Director Tim Gatz. "This is a critical step forward in Oklahoma's transportation future. This modernization of US-69/75 means the highway will continue to grow as a major freight and travel corridor, especially as Texas continues its expansion south of the Red River."

This project will improve accessibility on and off the highway, protect key interchanges, create one-way frontage roads and add a much needed rail crossing to the four lanes of traffic, all to alleviate traffic congestion and improve safety. This was a competitive grant process, these needs lead to Oklahoma's application being one of the 18 projects selected out of more than 200 submissions nationwide. The grant was a critical leg up to improving the commercial corridor.

"The current configuration simply can't keep up with today's heavy traffic demands, which is a concern not just for travelers but for the surrounding towns,"  said ODOT Division Two Engineer Anthony Echelle. "We have a great opportunity to create a modern corridor capable of moving freight traffic efficiently and safely through the state without bogging down local communities."

            ODOT's investment in highways and bridges is a statewide effort and will continue to improve Oklahoma's transportation infrastructure from state line to state line. Before the announcement of this grant, only the right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation phases for this segment of US-69/75 were scheduled for Federal Fiscal Year 2023 and construction was not even included in ODOT's Eight-year Construction Work Plan due lack of an available funding solution. Thanks to the FASTLANE grant, the project was able to be advanced to this year.

            Motorists are encouraged to plan for delays and use the travel tools provided by the department such as traffic advisories and following @OKDOT on Twitter and Facebook. Traffic advisories are posted at www.odot.org, which is also where motorists may sign up for traffic advisories to be sent via email when work begins.

- https://www.ok.gov/triton/modules/newsroom/newsroom_article.php?id=277&article_id=53257

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 06, 2019, 07:10:29 AM
Calera US-69 freeway conversion project begins this fall:

QuotePress Releases
Monday, August 5, 2019

Big changes for US-69/75 as modernization project gets green light
August 5, 2019
PR# 19-030

After years of planning, countless hours in the design room and input from the public, the US-69/75 corridor in Bryan County is a giant step closer to a major reconstruction thanks to a federal FASTLANE Grant received in 2016.

The contract was awarded by the Oklahoma Transportation Commission at its August meeting to Duit Construction of Edmond at more than $150 million, with a significant $62 million coming from federal funds. This was the third largest grant awarded in the nation during the grant cycle and is one of the highest amounts of federally awarded grants in the department's history. The project has financial incentives for different milestones and early completion, made possible by the federal grant.

The estimated three-yearlong project is anticipated to start as early as fall 2019 and will improve four miles of this corridor just north of the Texas state line between Chickasaw Rd. in Calera and US-70 in Durant.

"We are seeing interstate levels of traffic in this area and the massive changes made by this project will transform it into a modern, expanded freight corridor,"  said Oklahoma Secretary of Transportation and Oklahoma Department of Transportation Executive Director Tim Gatz. "This is a critical step forward in Oklahoma's transportation future. This modernization of US-69/75 means the highway will continue to grow as a major freight and travel corridor, especially as Texas continues its expansion south of the Red River."

This project will improve accessibility on and off the highway, protect key interchanges, create one-way frontage roads and add a much needed rail crossing to the four lanes of traffic, all to alleviate traffic congestion and improve safety. This was a competitive grant process, these needs lead to Oklahoma's application being one of the 18 projects selected out of more than 200 submissions nationwide. The grant was a critical leg up to improving the commercial corridor.

"The current configuration simply can't keep up with today's heavy traffic demands, which is a concern not just for travelers but for the surrounding towns,"  said ODOT Division Two Engineer Anthony Echelle. "We have a great opportunity to create a modern corridor capable of moving freight traffic efficiently and safely through the state without bogging down local communities."

            ODOT's investment in highways and bridges is a statewide effort and will continue to improve Oklahoma's transportation infrastructure from state line to state line. Before the announcement of this grant, only the right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation phases for this segment of US-69/75 were scheduled for Federal Fiscal Year 2023 and construction was not even included in ODOT's Eight-year Construction Work Plan due lack of an available funding solution. Thanks to the FASTLANE grant, the project was able to be advanced to this year.

            Motorists are encouraged to plan for delays and use the travel tools provided by the department such as traffic advisories and following @OKDOT on Twitter and Facebook. Traffic advisories are posted at www.odot.org, which is also where motorists may sign up for traffic advisories to be sent via email when work begins.

- https://www.ok.gov/triton/modules/newsroom/newsroom_article.php?id=277&article_id=53257

Tiny baby steps!  At this rate, US 69 will be Interstate standard as far north as I-40 by about 2065 or so! -- and the promise made in '91 with ISTEA will be fulfilled nearly three-quarters of a century later.  Outstanding! :rolleyes:

Quote from: sparker on August 06, 2019, 04:39:32 PM

Tiny baby steps!  At this rate, US 69 will be Interstate standard as far north as I-40 by about 2065 or so! -- and the promise made in '91 with ISTEA will be fulfilled nearly three-quarters of a century later.  Outstanding! :rolleyes:

Yeah, we'll see. OkDOT was conservative in asking for a budget increase when the state was recently handing them out, Stitt(the new governor) has said he wants to make Oklahoma a top ten state, and the recent house bill allots a 25 percent or so increase(IIRC) on highway spending over the last bill so maybe with all of that combination we'll get a surprise. I certainly won't hold my breath for it though.

A lot more has to be done with US-69 in South-Central OK. But it seems like the most of the state's road-building focus is just on urban projects in the metro OKC and Tulsa areas.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 08, 2019, 12:38:06 PM
A lot more has to be done with US-69 in South-Central OK. But it seems like the most of the state's road-building focus is just on urban projects in the metro OKC and Tulsa areas.

Not unlike Arkansas and I-49. The big cities get the attention while everything else gets to sit and wait.

Quote from: US71 on August 08, 2019, 01:32:09 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 08, 2019, 12:38:06 PM
A lot more has to be done with US-69 in South-Central OK. But it seems like the most of the state's road-building focus is just on urban projects in the metro OKC and Tulsa areas.

Not unlike Arkansas and I-49. The big cities get the attention while everything else gets to sit and wait.

It's also probable that ODOT is struggling to keep up with the political pressures emanating from OKC and Tulsa for increased attention to their transportation system -- and are simply going by their historic "playbook" (which would invariably prioritize intercity rather than intracity priorities, with methodologies to match).  It's likely to take at least another generation until they can differentiate between the disparate needs of urban vs. rural mobility. 

The thing with US-69 in Oklahoma, from the Red River to Big Cabin, is the highway serves a NATIONAL interest. It is a not a local, po-dunk road serving "Cletus" for his occasional trips to the bait shop. The road, as is, is too freaking dangerous for all the heavy trucks on it, the at-grade intersections, various speed zones, speed traps and other miscellaneous BS. That corridor needs to be upgraded to limited access, Interstate standards as much as possible.

The federal government is funding only a little over 1/3 of the $150 million project in Calera. The fed's share ought to be a quite a lot higher than that, given the fact most of the wear and tear on US-69 is coming from semi trucks out of state. It's not fair for Oklahoma's taxpayers to foot most of the bill on that specific stretch of highway.

As for dealing with the "severe lack of urban transportation choice" in OKC and Tulsa, that sounds like a veiled pitch for light rail lines and subway lines. Metro OKC is so spread out that a comprehensive light rail line there would cost tens of billions of dollars to build. The Tulsa metro is not much better and has fewer people too. Both cities do have bus networks. And even bus networks are struggling thanks to things like Uber. At any rate, mass transit is a totally different topic than the US-69 corridor in Oklahoma.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 12, 2019, 12:21:00 PM
The thing with US-69 in Oklahoma, from the Red River to Big Cabin, is the highway serves a NATIONAL interest. It is a not a local, po-dunk road serving "Cletus" for his occasional trips to the bait shop. The road, as is, is too freaking dangerous for all the heavy trucks on it, the at-grade intersections, various speed zones, speed traps and other miscellaneous BS. That corridor needs to be upgraded to limited access, Interstate standards as much as possible.

The federal government is funding only a little over 1/3 of the $150 million project in Calera. The fed's share ought to be a quite a lot higher than that, given the fact most of the wear and tear on US-69 is coming from semi trucks out of state. It's not fair for Oklahoma's taxpayers to foot most of the bill on that specific stretch of highway.

As for dealing with the "severe lack of urban transportation choice" in OKC and Tulsa, that sounds like a veiled pitch for light rail lines and subway lines. Metro OKC is so spread out that a comprehensive light rail line there would cost tens of billions of dollars to build. The Tulsa metro is not much better and has fewer people too. Both cities do have bus networks. And even bus networks are struggling thanks to things like Uber. At any rate, mass transit is a totally different topic than the US-69 corridor in Oklahoma.

All well and good.  But quite a few states (notably my own) have functionally "merged" the pots of both local and statewide revenue/expenditure streams.  And the choice as to how to deploy said funds, particularly in urban areas, is left to the cities and/or local MPO's.  More and more that has meant a prioritization of transit over automotive facilities within those areas, so the disbursements reflect that.  But extra buses or dedicated bus lanes in Tulsa or OKC lowers the pot considerably in "low-tax" states like OK that look at the pool as a "zero-sum" situation.  So those transit measures in Tulsa will mean scrimping on projects elsewhere, such as the improvement of the US 69 corridor.  So while urban transit is a different topic per se, the revenue source for its funding is decidedly not.  Even a state with much of its political power residing in outlying areas like OK is faced with dealing with where an increasingly large number of its residents actually live -- meaning OKC and Tulsa, complete with their exurban sphere of influence.   And those residents, and their elected officials, see what is occurring in other urban venues and invariably push for some of those same amenities, which in the transportation area mean mass transit of some sort.  For a while, purchasing buses (which can be deployed, for the most part, on existing facilities) and increasing route scope and frequency will be seen as properly addressing the issue -- but eventually the call will be for higher-capacity facilities less prone to be rendered problematic by traffic -- meaning LR, commute rail, express busways on freeways, etc.  And even with federal grants and specified funding, much of the funds necessary to build these will come from the state's DOT revenue stream.  It's essentially the "squeaky wheel" concept writ large -- more people demanding transit in urban areas gets more attention than a bunch of out-of-state truckers looking to bypass a few traffic signals.   Yes, US 69 is a nationally-important commercial corridor -- but without sufficient revenue to "do it all", even a socioeconomically conservative state like OK has to make choices -- and here, the money will likely follow the population density. 

Some idiot in the Tulsa Voice suggested they put 10% of all gas taxes towards bike lanes. Hello. 10% of the population doesn't use bike lanes. They are a nuisance to many of us with the way bikers ride like idiots.

Quote from: sparkerAll well and good.  But quite a few states (notably my own) have functionally "merged" the pots of both local and statewide revenue/expenditure streams.  And the choice as to how to deploy said funds, particularly in urban areas, is left to the cities and/or local MPO's.  More and more that has meant a prioritization of transit over automotive facilities within those areas, so the disbursements reflect that.  But extra buses or dedicated bus lanes in Tulsa or OKC lowers the pot considerably in "low-tax" states like OK that look at the pool as a "zero-sum" situation.  So those transit measures in Tulsa will mean scrimping on projects elsewhere, such as the improvement of the US 69 corridor.

Much of the traffic on US-69 is long distance traffic moving from city to city or destined for cities. Smaller towns along the corridor get to deal with the effects and consequences of it. Cities are not isolated islands. They affect people in the rural and smaller town areas in between in a variety of ways.

---

See the above response to Sparker. Much of our nations highway network is about connecting cities. That stretch of US-69 from the Red River to Big Cabin definitely falls into the serving cities to cities category.

Regarding resources and the fed "paying for it," the fed pays far less than it used to; that 90/10 model on federal highway funding is mostly a thing of the distant past. Most of the resources of which you speak were converted into tax cuts and other give-aways for campaign purposes. Add to that the conundrum of anything transportation related suffering from severe cost inflation. Passenger rail is by far the absolute worst in terms of insane inflation.

The United States isn't even laid out to support passenger rail anymore. Not by geography and very much not by culture. Like it not, the growth in most American cities has been tailored to automobile use. That especially includes newer cities like OKC and Tulsa. Hell, our modest LATS bus service in Lawton has been scaled back on service times and routes thanks to Uber and Lyft eating into their business.

Mass transit fans never want to own up to the fact that most people in most places would still prefer to drive a car to get from point A to point B if given the choice. They do so for a variety of motivations. Some of it is out of convenience and time savings. And a fair amount of it is out of income status. That's one of the factors hurting New York City's subway system now. Not only do they not remotely have enough money to fix that aging subway system, ridership has fallen due to massive demographic changes. That cuts the MTA's funding even worse. Many lower and middle income people, the ones who most rely on mass transit, are literally being priced right out of the region. The upper income and outright rich folks who make enough to live in NYC comfortably don't ride the freaking subway. This is a syndrome that is spreading to other "first world" cities.

The idea that since MPOs "control" funding in their areas that it means more funding is going to transit than roads is one that I find unfounded.  NHP and STBG funds are not used for transit, for example, and they are the lion's share of federal funds.  CMAQ is already restricted to the point that it is gladly handed over -- but that is not a function of the existence of an MPO.

MPOs also do not control state funding.  The TIP and STIP are to enable the use of federal funding.

So, I do not see transit robbing roads of funding, at least based on the idea of MPOs repurposing federal highway funds as transit funds.

Quote from: Rothman on August 12, 2019, 06:50:47 PM
The idea that since MPOs "control" funding in their areas that it means more funding is going to transit than roads is one that I find unfounded.  NHP and STBG funds are not used for transit, for example, and they are the lion's share of federal funds.  CMAQ is already restricted to the point that it is gladly handed over -- but that is not a function of the existence of an MPO.

MPOs also do not control state funding.  The TIP and STIP are to enable the use of federal funding.

So, I do not see transit robbing roads of funding, at least based on the idea of MPOs repurposing federal highway funds as transit funds.

MPO's aren't dictating the direction of funds; but in certain locations they have been given a significant amount of say in things (Portland [OR] metro is the notable exception to the rule; Metro -- functionally a MPO with very sharp teeth and the legislated freedom to bite as they will!) -- and lately most, particularly in metro areas well over 500K population (OKC & Tulsa both fit), have shown a decided preference for transit over automotive capacity expansion.   And their influence tends to affect the state -- often through STIP/TIP suggestions -- and local fund contributions more than the federal input -- much of which is legislatively specified these days although technically "block" funding (now almost exclusively devoted to state STIP-listed projects; see above!).   But in concert with the cities under their parvenu, MPO's can and do actively press their congressional representatives for as much funding as they can garner for their area -- and within the yearly federal outlay, that leaves less for areas with less vocal influence.

---

US 69 (and starting with its original iteration as US 73) was simply an upgrade of the railside service road for the M-K-T railroad, which was the most direct route from Kansas City to DFW.  Being a "straight arrow" (and the route of the "Texas Special" pre-Amtrak passenger service), it was a "natural" part of the regional highway network; besides, it provided commercial truck access to the towns that had sprouted up along the rail line, which dated from the 1890's.   It's not that ODOT doesn't want the route -- not by any means; it was simply left out of the original interstate network because MacDonald and associates felt that stringing OKC and Wichita into a single N-S "spine" was preferable to a more straight-line route that would have likely been "bent" in a way to serve Tulsa more directly (more a US 75/169 combination than one straight up US 69 to KC).  Nevertheless, it did get on the national radar back with 1991's ISTEA (as an "add-on" but otherwise unnumbered corridor), but ODOT -- and the OK state government as a whole -- has largely ignored it or, more likely, has put it on the shelf.  It'll take a lot of kicking and screaming (and by that I don't mean blowback from Atoka or Stringtown) from regional parties to get some sort of concerted effort going to upgrade the whole corridor.  It seems the official attitude is more or less "well, the corridor's being well used regardless of whether we sink a lot of money into it or not -- and since we don't have it to spare, the status quo is just fine for now!"  Ironically, a significant decrease in commercial traffic -- particularly if AR eventually completes I-49 just over the state line -- might prompt some sort of action quicker than the usual incremental increase in such traffic -- which would simply serve to underscore the viewpoint expressed above.     

Quote from: bugo on August 12, 2019, 06:11:46 PM
Some idiot in the Tulsa Voice suggested they put 10% of all gas taxes towards bike lanes. Hello. 10% of the population doesn't use bike lanes.

The only Tulsans who ride bikes are the hipsters who ride along Riverside. Riding a bike is suicidal anywhere else in town. Bicyclists believe the rules don't pertain to them and they won't decide if they want to be a pedestrian or a vehicle. One night, I was in the right lane going down the one way I-44 frontage road and a future Darwin award winner was riding his bike, with no reflectors, down the road in the wrong direction. I honked my horn at him and probably yelled at him for being a fucking idiot but although this is an extreme example of idiotic bicyclists, I've seen them do plenty of other stupid things. Then when they do something stupid and get run over by a car, they blame the driver of the car when in fact it was the moron on the bicycle doing something monumentally stupid that led to their own demise.

The weather is so extreme and volatile in Oklahoma that a bicycle is not a practical form of transportation many days out of the year. It's either too hot or too cold, rainy, snowy, icy, tornadoey and generally unpleasant and unacceptable for an unprotected bike. This also pertains to motorcycles. Relying on a bicycle as your sole mode of transportation in Oklahoma is simply impractical.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 12, 2019, 07:30:25 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 12, 2019, 07:13:13 PM
So we should just build a multi-billion dollar bike network on the hopes people will use it? I think it should be studied first how many would use it and the results would likely show so few would use it as a serious means of commuting it wouldn't be worthwhile.

You will quickly loose people at the cost but propose road diets en masse and you quickly kill any future cycling efforts for a long time. The roads will need to be expanded and more infrastructure than pavement will be needed. A fully built out bike network in Tulsa would be in the billions.

In order for a truly successful bike network to induce potential users you would need the network to extend well out of downtown.

ODOT didn't want US-69? What's your source for that claim? It's not exactly a road to nowhere, given it directly connects McAlester and Muskogee to the DFW metro, not to mention providing the most direct road route from Dallas to St Louis and points farther in the Northeast US.

LATS is stuck between a rock and hard place. You may think Uber and Lyft are going to go out of business but you have no reliable clue when that will happen, much less if it will happen at all. Neither does LATS. In the meantime they have to make hard adjustments today to keep the bus system from going bust in the short term.

Most people in Lawton don't care one way or the other about the bus system since they never use it. Some even consider the bus network to be a liberal waste of taxpayer money since some of its operations are subsidized by government money and its ridership is mostly of the poorer and darker classes of people. I think it's better for Lawton to at least have some kind of bus system. But the tax base here cannot absorb lots of red ink from a bus system operating deep in the red.

Quote from: bugoThe only Tulsans who ride bikes are the hipsters who ride along Riverside. Riding a bike is suicidal anywhere else in town. Bicyclists believe the rules don't pertain to them and they won't decide if they want to be a pedestrian or a vehicle.

There are obnoxious bike riders who don't observe traffic rules and even do stupidly risky things. But with that being said there is a much far larger problem: car drivers with their heads embedded in their digital asses. That's the main reason why I refuse to ride my trail bike on any "shared" bike paths in Lawton also used by vehicles. Way too many motorists are looking at their phones or other distractions in the vehicle rather than keeping their eyes on the road. That's what truly makes it suicidal to ride a bicycle along city streets. Hell, it's even risky just being a pedestrian. If it was up to me I would make fines and other punishments for distracted driving (particularly from mobile phone use) far more severe.

Compounding the problem further, there is a fringe element of people who antagonize people on bicycles. I wonder if that's out of some politically-driven motivation, thinking anyone on a "10-speed" wearing a helmet is some kale-eating liberal. Here in Lawton a fair amount of the criminal element pedals around on bicycles (smaller dirt bicycles usually), some of them stolen. That brings even more trouble to law-abiding people on bikes who do follow traffic rules. You're riding your own bike home and have people in the neighborhood watch calling the cops or putting you on blast all over Facebook.

Quote from: Plutonic PandaIn order for a truly successful bike network to induce potential users you would need the network to extend well out of downtown.

Lawton's bike "network" is going nowhere and being used by hardly anyone because it's nothing more than a few disconnected segments in different parts of town. And most of the "network" is nothing more than a few signs posted saying bicycles can use a full traffic lane on a given city street. Um, no thanks.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2019, 03:33:32 PM

There are obnoxious bike riders who don't observe traffic rules and even do stupidly risky things. But with that being said there is a much far larger problem: car drivers with their heads embedded in their digital asses. That's the main reason why I refuse to ride my trail bike on any "shared" bike paths in Lawton also used by vehicles. Way too many motorists are looking at their phones or other distractions in the vehicle rather than keeping their eyes on the road. That's what truly makes it suicidal to ride a bicycle along city streets. Hell, it's even risky just being a pedestrian. If it was up to me I would make fines and other punishments for distracted driving (particularly from mobile phone use) far more severe.

Compounding the problem further, there is a fringe element of people who antagonize people on bicycles. I wonder if that's out of some politically-driven motivation, thinking anyone on a "10-speed" wearing a helmet is some kale-eating liberal. Here in Lawton a fair amount of the criminal element pedals around on bicycles (smaller dirt bicycles usually), some of them stolen. That brings even more trouble to law-abiding people on bikes who do follow traffic rules. You're riding your own bike home and have people in the neighborhood watch calling the cops or putting you on blast all over Facebook.

This is a reason I do not like to associate myself with other cyclists. If I ever manage to strike a conversation with one the convo almost always turns to a hatred for cars or whatever and I usually at that point will break away from further communication where possible. I got into a fist fight a couple weeks ago because another cyclist was riding erratically and he pissed off a dude in a truck who I'm guessing associated me with the other cyclist started talking shit and threw a bottle of water at me. Long story short I didn't care what caused I was the first to start throwing hands but I was doing nothing other than riding lawfully and some other asshat of a cyclist started shit.

In general I have a disdain for cyclists although I myself cycle quite often. I rarely have problems with drivers as I stay to the right as much as possible, I never take a full lane, and I yield to cars almost always. I have only been hit twice and both times the car drivers were very nice and we went on our ways with no issues. I can't understand why cyclists get into it with drivers as much as they do or claim to. Again, do to these reasons, I try and disassociate with the cycling crowd as much as possible. They are the reason car drivers treat cyclists like shit because they always start shit and to reiterate I say from the perspective as a cyclist.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2019, 03:33:32 PMLawton's bike "network" is going nowhere and being used by hardly anyone because it's nothing more than a few disconnected segments in different parts of town. And most of the "network" is nothing more than a few signs posted saying bicycles can use a full traffic lane on a given city street. Um, no thanks.

Right but that is because Lawton has not built it out properly. Not that I think it should or shouldn't. In Tulsa's case they would need at a minimum a billion to build out a fully functioning bike network that would even begin to make sense for most to consider it and even at that how many would use it daily as a means for commuting? I am not talking about recreational use or 3-6 days out of the year "hey I haven't biked to work in awhile" types. I bike over 50 miles a week minimum but it is mainly for fun. I get sweaty and tired in LA weather in the 60-70s, I couldn't imagine the humidity and weather extremes in Oklahoma.

Given the spread out nature of American cities along with longer commuting patterns I just don't see a fully built out bike network making sense or worth the investment. I do support a network of trails that can be workable for those who wish to go out of their way to commute by bike, but if you do that, you can't expect everyone else to bow to your whim because you want to do something abnormal.

SoCal has bike lanes almost EVERYWHERE(!!!!) and they are hardly used.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2019, 03:33:32 PM
ODOT didn't want US-69? What's your source for that claim? It's not exactly a road to nowhere, given it directly connects McAlester and Muskogee to the DFW metro, not to mention providing the most direct road route from Dallas to St Louis and points farther in the Northeast US.

When the US highway system was originally laid out, connectivity for major metros in their respective states were the priority.

Now that commerce support (read: trucks) tends to drive road funding, it would be natural for ODOT to gradually give it priority.

No one in ODOT could probably predict the amount of truck traffic that would originate from DFW let alone Mexico when they submitted their recommendations back in 1947 and 1952.

So when commerce began its upswing post NAFTA,  it was probably natural for ODOT to want everyone to use I-35 and I-44. That is where the fed dollars and toll bonds went way back in the day.

Today, its much different.  I-35 is congested, OKC Metro is busy and shippers are avoiding tollroads if possible to take cost out of their routes.

This is driving yet more traffic to US-69. You can clearly see that ODOT has been taking an incremental, measured approach to the improvements.

With only so many dollars to use and not wanting to build yet another tollroad, this makes sense.

I can travel in more than every method, but I do not associate my self with any thing.

There is driving and the ability to carry every thing needed in any type of weather. Cars are my Home Away From Home.

There is Public Transit be cause I often get sick of cars and traffic.

Walking is also okay especially if it is nearby I will simply walk.

I really hate bicycles and people that ride them for some reason. Many are nosey little jerks. I could ride bikes; It is very good exercise. However, I would avoid the main roads be cause the cars are much larger than bikes. As for going through quieter residential streets could have dogs, even loose dogs. Bike Lanes are ludicrous. It is better to have dedicated Bike Trails. But this does not have much to do with transportation but instead to do more with recreation. There is not much recreation or even parks. Bike Trails would also double as such.

And as usual, keep the Bikes and Pedestrians and Cars and Trains completely separate from each other. No more at grade crossings.

It would be nice to see more motorcycles around also. but most of the United States is too cold to ride a bicycle and a motorcycle.

I still use Interstate 35 even if they routinely close parts of the highway for various road work.

My views on The Unfinished Corridor is that it is unlikely they will ever finish it correctly. Other corridors should be focused on instead.

Back in the pre-Interstate days (barely), ODOT had proposed a series of turnpikes; one of which more or less traced present-day I-35 from TX to OKC -- but there was a branch approximating the trajectory of today's Chickasaw Turnpike alignment, plus an extension north along what's now US 377/OK 99 to I-44/Turner Turnpike (this showed up on Gousha state/regional maps circa 1956-57).  It would have been interesting to see what might have happened if that alignment had been included in the original Interstate iteration; that would have, albeit admittedly along not the most direct pathway, assumed much of the through function of the US 69 corridor.  But it does indicate that the OK transportation arena did include, at least at one point, a somewhat more efficient way to get from Tulsa down to DFW than currently exists.  But like with most post-1968 potential Interstate corridors (legislated or not), the absence of that chargeable Federal funding pool means a lengthy and often sporadic approach to development.     

Sparker, although certain metro areas certainly have a penchant for transit, I was responding to the assertion that they are robbing highway funds to pay for it.  As I pointed out, the eligibility of the bulk of the funding restricts their ability to do so.

The idea that MPOs do so through lobbying the state or somehow forcing local funds to pay for transit is also one I find unfounded.  Transit is typically funded through separate appropriations.

It really isn't a matter of transit robbing highway funding.  Have to also say that in urban areas, some prioritization of transit is wholly legitimate as well.

Government funding for highways and plenty of other things ultimately all comes from the same finite pool of taxpayer money.

Few, if any mass transit systems at all in the United States are entirely self-sufficient at all (meaning their operations are fully sustained or even profitable based on money paid by riders to use the system). Just about any American mass transit system needs significant amounts of taxpayer funded subsidies, grants, etc to keep the system functional and employees of the transit systems paid. The same is likely true the systems running elsewhere in the world.

Money for roads or money for subway trains all ends up coming out of the same pockets. It's semantics for anyone to say gas taxes pay for the roads and some other separate fund does this for transit. Fuel tax revenue is routinely directed at other things, like boosting pay for badly paid public school teachers in Oklahoma. What's to stop a group wanting to build a overpriced subway line in Tulsa or OKC from attempting to do so via a big fuel tax increase?

From what I understand, Oklahoma City and Tulsa never get any denser than suburban. There is no point in a subway system, although buses might be helpful.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 15, 2019, 11:46:59 AM
Few, if any mass transit systems at all in the United States are entirely self-sufficient at all (meaning their operations are fully sustained or even profitable based on money paid by riders to use the system).

Untolled highways aren't self-sufficient, either.

Those "un-tolled" roads are tolled at the gasoline pump, and by other methods as well. There is no such thing as a "free" road.

Quote from: 1 on August 15, 2019, 11:49:33 AM
From what I understand, Oklahoma City and Tulsa never get any denser than suburban. There is no point in a subway system, although buses might be helpful.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 15, 2019, 11:46:59 AM
Few, if any mass transit systems at all in the United States are entirely self-sufficient at all (meaning their operations are fully sustained or even profitable based on money paid by riders to use the system).

Untolled highways aren't self-sufficient, either.

You are incorrect.

Quote from: 1 on August 15, 2019, 11:49:33 AM
From what I understand, Oklahoma City and Tulsa never get any denser than suburban.

1500 is still suburban. I live in a suburban city/town that exceeds 1500 people per square mile.

Quote from: Rothman on August 15, 2019, 06:50:27 AM
Sparker, although certain metro areas certainly have a penchant for transit, I was responding to the assertion that they are robbing highway funds to pay for it.  As I pointed out, the eligibility of the bulk of the funding restricts their ability to do so.

The perception that this was indeed the case prompted the expansion of the CA STIP to include non-state-maintained facilities, including transit stations and stops as well as the streets on which transit operates.  The shift was more than just funding -- Caltrans district offices' engineering resources were intermingled with local equivalents; project design and/or vetting now involves Caltrans person-hours on virtually all transportation projects within the state.  By some measures that would be equitable -- but it was about the time this all happened that Caltrans' active concern with such niceties as route continuity and signing seemed to fall off the map.  Unfortunately, expanding the agency role into a functional partnership with local transit/transportation agencies appears to have had the effect of diluting the attention paid to their historic role as the maintainer and overseer of the state highway network.   So at least out here it's not just a redistribution of available funds -- it's internal reprioritization of agency functions as well.  Whether something similar is occurring in the OK arena is something posters from that state may wish to address.   

One thing that is forgotten about this road is that some of the expressway is fairly recent. Some of it was built on new terrain while some of it was built by upgrading the old highway. It was 2 lanes until the late 1980s. The The 1988 ODOT map shows the highway as 4 lanes from I-44 near Big Cabin to the Red River. The last section of 2 lane highway was from Chockie to Atoka. This corridor was "completed" later than other major corridors in the state. It must have been hell when long parts were still 2 lanes. Was it as big of a truck route in 1987 than it is now?

Quote from: bugo on August 22, 2019, 08:36:49 AM
One thing that is forgotten about this road is that some of the expressway is fairly recent. Some of it was built on new terrain while some of it was built by upgrading the old highway. It was 2 lanes until the late 1980s. The The 1988 ODOT map shows the highway as 4 lanes from I-44 near Big Cabin to the Red River. The last section of 2 lane highway was from Chockie to Atoka. This corridor was "completed" later than other major corridors in the state. It must have been hell when long parts were still 2 lanes. Was it as big of a truck route in 1987 than it is now?

The traffic issues in OKC worsened in the '80's -- part of it likely due to the original substandard I-35/40 alignment through downtown as well as the fact that the I-44 bypass around the north side wasn't fully completed until later in the decade -- so it's quite likely that commercial traffic from the central Midwest to DFW and other southerly TX points that had simply stayed on I-44 to I-35 started looking for an alternative, and US 69 became the obvious choice because of its "straightline" characteristics, regardless of the various obstacles along the way (Muskogee, the speed traps further south, etc.)  Obviously someone in ODOT or with some political clout initiated the freeway upgrade between Muskogee and McAlester at some point -- so the value of the route was recognized decades ago -- but at some point regularized upgrades ceased -- more likely than not due to fiscal constraints -- and now the corridor is marked by "spot" upgrades such as the Durant bypass, the south McAlester freeway extension, and the Calera (casino?) development.  Whether a major project such as the Muskogee bypass ever reaches the implementation stage is yet to be determined;  there always seems to be one or another aggrieved party along the route seeking to maintain the status quo for mostly monetary reasons (some folks like effectively captive audiences!).  But with other parts of the state looking to snag whatever project money becomes available for their own priorities, the US 69 corridor -- as a whole -- will likely continue to be ODOT's "red-headed stepchild", with "spot" projects (although I understand Calera isn't going to come cheap!) being the rule rather than the exception.  A coordinated effort to upgrade the entire corridor from TX to Big Cabin just doesn't seem to be in the cards for the near term.   

US-69 between the Red River and Big Cabin won't be brought up fully to Interstate standards any time soon. At least it won't happen while the current political climate regarding roads at the state and federal level remains the same.

State lawmakers in Northeast Oklahoma, particularly around the Tulsa area, do have a lot of clout. If they really wanted to push for it hard they could get US-69 upgraded from the Red River up to McAlester as part of an effort to create a non-stop, high speed road link between the Tulsa and DFW metros. I would even go so far to say they could ram-rod the upgrades through or around Atoka and Stringtown. US-75 from Henryetta (I-40) up to the South side of Tulsa has its own issues. A new terrain bypass around Olkmulgee would be the biggest issue and expense there. Metro Tulsa has its own issues. The I-44/US-75 interchange is badly outdated and needs to be fully replaced. The same goes for I-44 between the I-244 interchange and the Arkansas River. It's just 2 lanes in each direction with features that look like they date back to the early 1960's. The traffic burden along that stretch will get a lot worse when the Gilcrease Expressway is completed down to the I-44/I-244 interchange.

I don't know the history of the US-69 freeway segment between McAlester and Muskogee. But it appears to me the route was upgraded to push a lot of long distance heavy truck traffic away from the US-75 corridor and Tulsa's surface streets.

In the past there has been a good bit of intra-state political squabbling over the US-69/75 corridors from other parts of the state. Back in the 1990's one group of lawmakers were pushing for new turnpikes to be built in really absurd locations as a means of competing for business with the growing US-75 corridor in the Eastern part of the state. One proposal was a turnpike from Clinton down to Snyder along the US-183 corridor (implying US-183 was the equal to US-75 in the Western half of Oklahoma). Another was a turnpike from Duncan to Davis. I'm glad neither materialized. Neither of those proposed routes would attract a lot of long distance traffic. OTOH US-75 is the direct connection between Tulsa and Dallas.

If Oklahoma could just get its act together on some key issues much broader areas of the state could be booming. There is a hell of a lot of growth potential just not being realized. Currently the climate is set to repel people, not attract them. Especially families. With the exception of parts of the OKC and Tulsa metros the rest of OK is fly-over or drive-thru country. If the federal government wasn't AWOL on this stuff it would see the national importance US-69 has with interstate commerce and push to get it upgraded to Interstate quality. Right now the feds prefer to leave such matters up to individual states to handle. Oklahoma is too cash-strapped to upgrade US-69 along with all the other road and bridge issues on its plate.

^^^^^^^^^
Looks like we're in basic agreement about the near-term prospects for the US 69(75) corridor.  Of course, ideally, it would end up as an I-45 extension to Big Cabin, with a x45 on the INT and US 75 up into Tulsa.  But anything like that is decades off if at all in the cards.  OK has long elected to follow the "low-tax" idiom (did you know "idiom" and "idiot" derive from the same base source?) for better or worse (you be the judge), so they blithely skip from one fiscal hole to the next while publicly patting themselves on the back for "looking out for the taxpayers' interest".  Seems to be a never-ending cycle in a number of states, OK definitely included.

And my aunts, uncles, and cousins arrayed along US 70 from Durant to Broken Bow would bristle at being classified as denizens of "flyover" country (although after a few beers they'd probably grudgingly acknowledge it!).     

Us Okies bring it upon ourselves to make the state little more than fly-over country by being so cheap. Over the long term I worry the "culture" in this state will bring bigger consequences than just being limited in our ability to build infrastructure projects.

Oklahoma is shedding a great deal of its youth to other states near and far from here. In 10-20 years the United States as a whole will be struggling with serious issues of demographic imbalance due to birth rates that continue to fall. In other words: we'll have way too many retired people and not enough working age taxpayers to keep the system funded and operational. Oklahoma and other "fly over" states will be first to feel the effects of demographic imbalance. We haven't been doing squat to attract or even retain young adults in the state's work force. Combine that with plummeting fertility rates. The result: not enough working age people to keep everything running here.

It takes working age human beings to fill jobs as cops, fire fighters, teachers, nurses, etc. And you gotta offer enough pay to fill those positions. For all the talk about how AI and automation is going to replace a lot of jobs, plenty of other jobs will still require people with a pulse to do the work. If the supply of working age adult labor gets tight nationwide cities will get pitted against each other. Low tax/low income states like Oklahoma won't have the tax base and pay scales to compete with the richer cities on the coasts or down in Texas.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 22, 2019, 06:13:07 PM
Us Okies bring it upon ourselves to make the state little more than fly-over country by being so cheap. Over the long term I worry the "culture" in this state will bring bigger consequences than just being limited in our ability to build infrastructure projects.

Oklahoma is shedding a great deal of its youth to other states near and far from here. In 10-20 years the United States as a whole will be struggling with serious issues of demographic imbalance due to birth rates that continue to fall. In other words: we'll have way too many retired people and not enough working age taxpayers to keep the system funded and operational. Oklahoma and other "fly over" states will be first to feel the effects of demographic imbalance. We haven't been doing squat to attract or even retain young adults in the state's work force. Combine that with plummeting fertility rates. The result: not enough working age people to keep everything running here.

It takes working age human beings to fill jobs as cops, fire fighters, teachers, nurses, etc. And you gotta offer enough pay to fill those positions. For all the talk about how AI and automation is going to replace a lot of jobs, plenty of other jobs will still require people with a pulse to do the work. If the supply of working age adult labor gets tight nationwide cities will get pitted against each other. Low tax/low income states like Oklahoma won't have the tax base and pay scales to compete with the richer cities on the coasts or down in Texas.

Oklahoma fracks a ton of oil. Where is the money going?

The recent bump in Oklahoma's fuel taxes (3¢ gasoline, 6¢ diesel) was the first increase in over 25 years. Yet the taxes we pay at the pump are still among the lowest in the nation. Most of the money from the fuel tax increase has been spent to fund teacher pay raises. Teacher pay is another category where Oklahoma pays among the least of all states. The state legislature dreamed up this fuel tax maneuver out of desperation. They couldn't dare raise state income tax rates or (God forbid) hike any property taxes. So they resorted to a funding source that hadn't been touched in decades. Teachers were leaving the state in droves for far higher pay elsewhere. Reps from Texas school districts are still poaching teachers from Oklahoma, even with the pay raise in place. So, Oklahoma is now slightly more competitive in teacher pay, thanks to some misappropriation of funding. Our "free" roads are still effectively being funded at early 1990's levels.

Quote from: sparker on August 22, 2019, 03:37:58 PM
Looks like we're in basic agreement about the near-term prospects for the US 69(75) corridor.  Of course, ideally, it would end up as an I-45 extension to Big Cabin, with a x45 on the INT and US 75 up into Tulsa.  But anything like that is decades off if at all in the cards.

No matter what happens with US 69, I just can't see OTA being interested in spending any amount of money to slap a blue shield on the INT. As built it's sufficient for its function, and will be for the foreseeable future. The only work it needs it getting the cable barriers installed for the rest of the length (slowly happening) and the usual pavement projects. Interstate upgrades wouldn't improve the performance at all, while they do on US 69.

Quote from: dfwmapper on August 23, 2019, 05:49:55 AM

Quote from: sparker on August 22, 2019, 03:37:58 PM
Looks like we're in basic agreement about the near-term prospects for the US 69(75) corridor.  Of course, ideally, it would end up as an I-45 extension to Big Cabin, with a x45 on the INT and US 75 up into Tulsa.  But anything like that is decades off if at all in the cards.

No matter what happens with US 69, I just can't see OTA being interested in spending any amount of money to slap a blue shield on the INT. As built it's sufficient for its function, and will be for the foreseeable future. The only work it needs it getting the cable barriers installed for the rest of the length (slowly happening) and the usual pavement projects. Interstate upgrades wouldn't improve the performance at all, while they do on US 69.

Even if US 69 itself is eventually signed as an Interstate (presumably a I-45 extension), any "branch" such as one utilizing the INT northwest of McAlester would not be likely to be included in an upgrade "package" unless there was substantial pressure from Tulsa interests to do so.  The "preapproved" Interstate designation for the corridor dating from 1991's ISTEA specifically notes I-40 at Checotah as the northern terminus for the segment, so shunting the concept over INT and US 75 wouldn't be possible without a legislative revisit.  Correspondingly, any Interstate extension along US 69 north of I-40 would need to be administratively addressed as a separate entity than that segment with federal preapproval.   On a side note, it wouldn't surprise me -- particularly if a Muskogee bypass gains traction -- that elevating the Muskogee Turnpike to Interstate status (I-340, anyone?) might function as a stopgap; even any "tweaking" of that facility to bring it up to snuff would certainly be more cost-effective than an upgrade of US 75 from I-40 north to Tulsa, and would only add about 18 additional miles to a Dallas-Tulsa trip. 

Getting the I-45 designation north of I-40 is the easiest part of the process. Worst case they wait until it's done and get easy approvals from AASHTO and FHWA.

As far as I can tell, the Muskogee is pretty close to meeting Interstate standards already from US 69 to the west end, other than maybe the weird raised medians on bridges. The Broken Arrow is a bit more questionable, especially near I-44. Anything west of I-44 obviously isn't happening with the UP track there.

I get a 22 mile difference into downtown Tulsa going via Muskogee rather than Henryetta, so I think the INT and US 75 will remain the corridor of choice.

Quote from: dfwmapper on August 23, 2019, 10:01:51 PM
Getting the I-45 designation north of I-40 is the easiest part of the process. Worst case they wait until it's done and get easy approvals from AASHTO and FHWA.

As far as I can tell, the Muskogee is pretty close to meeting Interstate standards already from US 69 to the west end, other than maybe the weird raised medians on bridges. The Broken Arrow is a bit more questionable, especially near I-44. Anything west of I-44 obviously isn't happening with the UP track there.

I get a 22 mile difference into downtown Tulsa going via Muskogee rather than Henryetta, so I think the INT and US 75 will remain the corridor of choice.

If by any chance I-45 eventually gets designated from DFW north to I-40, someone (not necessarily with ODOT -- more likely a local congress critter) might insert a designation clause within the yearly federal budget bill extending it further north -- and that part would certainly be simple.  But like with any "aftermarket" corridors, designation is merely the first step -- it's still up to the states to actually budget and let the various construction projects required to actually complete the corridor.  Look how many nascent Interstate corridors are legislatively designated in TX (and NC, for that matter!) and what percentage of the aggregate mileage of all of those is actually in operation as signed Interstate facilities.   Hint: not all that much!  Seems like every couple of years some section of the I-69 "family" opens up for a few miles here and there as budgetary considerations allow.  And something tells me, at least with TXDOT, that the massive Houston freeway rebuild will cause a budgetary "hole" for several funding cycles that will likely affect other projects statewide.  So while OK and its fiscal woes tend to cut off corridor concepts at their inception (just either not planning them or isolating whatever projects do crop up -- like the Calera upgrade -- in such a way as not to point toward the whole US 69 corridor, just a particular small section with its own rationale), TX tends to publish broad plans for these corridors -- usually overblown in regards to scope and who and what gets "serviced" -- but ekes the implementation out in very small chunks.  And the end result is that actual TX progress is not so different from that of OK; a small section of I-69E gets done west of Corpus and another SW of Houston, while OK's US 69 sees improvement at Calera and around McAlester.  The only difference is that OK actually views their projects as "spot" improvements rather than an integral part of a larger corridor concept, whereas with TX it's completing the corridor one baby step at a time -- a matter of, in TX, partially fulfilled "high hopes", whereas with OK it's "we're lucky to have the funds to do these small things; but don't expect much more than this!"  Different approaches; similar results.   

Houston needs a freeway rebuild. So does Dallas.

Texas is very similar to Oklahoma's progress: The urban areas get the much needed road projects first.

...

A difference between the road projects is Oklahoma D.O.T. will avoid road upgrades such as bypasses while Texas acquires wide Right Of Way and builds Frontage Roads to accommodate displaced businesses. If a business (or entire town) protests, TEX D.O.T. will say: "So what? Just move to the new frontage roads?!"

...

McAlester's Right Of Way is too narrow for more Interchanges. Where are they trying to build one?

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 22, 2019, 09:28:18 PM
The recent bump in Oklahoma's fuel taxes (3¢ gasoline, 6¢ diesel) was the first increase in over 25 years. Yet the taxes we pay at the pump are still among the lowest in the nation. Most of the money from the fuel tax increase has been spent to fund teacher pay raises. Teacher pay is another category where Oklahoma pays among the least of all states. The state legislature dreamed up this fuel tax maneuver out of desperation. They couldn't dare raise state income tax rates or (God forbid) hike any property taxes.

Property taxes are off limits to the state. Millages are set at the local level and must fund certain things (schools being one).

Quote from: In_Correct on August 24, 2019, 06:47:14 PM
McAlester's Right Of Way is too narrow for more Interchanges. Where are they trying to build one?

The long term plan is to freewayize it from US270 to south of the Indian Nations interchange. The Kinkead Road interchange is supposed to start this month. The 8-year plan also shows work at the south end of 69B and around the INT interchange.

Quote from: bugo on August 22, 2019, 08:36:49 AM
One thing that is forgotten about this road is that some of the expressway is fairly recent. Some of it was built on new terrain while some of it was built by upgrading the old highway. It was 2 lanes until the late 1980s. The The 1988 ODOT map shows the highway as 4 lanes from I-44 near Big Cabin to the Red River. The last section of 2 lane highway was from Chockie to Atoka. This corridor was "completed" later than other major corridors in the state. It must have been hell when long parts were still 2 lanes. Was it as big of a truck route in 1987 than it is now?

Yes. I used to drive it in the late 70's from Tulsa to Dallas and it has always had heavy truck traffic.  The Chockie part was the last because it was built along a new alignment through Limestone Gap.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 22, 2019, 02:25:01 PM
Metro Tulsa has its own issues. The I-44/US-75 interchange is badly outdated and needs to be fully replaced. The same goes for I-44 between the I-244 interchange and the Arkansas River. It's just 2 lanes in each direction with features that look like they date back to the early 1960's.

It's on the 8-year plan. I saw the 33rd West Ave bridge replacements are going out for bid before the end of the year.

That stretch of I44 was built in 1953 to tie in the Turner Turnpike with the new 51st Street bridge.  I44 wasn't extended east for another few years.

Quote
I don't know the history of the US-69 freeway segment between McAlester and Muskogee. But it appears to me the route was upgraded to push a lot of long distance heavy truck traffic away from the US-75 corridor and Tulsa's surface streets.

It got started as a result of relocation due to the construction of Lake Eufaula. With the Feds paying 100% why not shoot for the stars. Same thing with US64 west of Lake Keystone. The part for Checotah to Summitt came in the late 70's.

Quote
In the past there has been a good bit of intra-state political squabbling over the US-69/75 corridors from other parts of the state. Back in the 1990's one group of lawmakers were pushing for new turnpikes to be built in really absurd locations as a means of competing for business with the growing US-75 corridor in the Eastern part of the state. One proposal was a turnpike from Clinton down to Snyder along the US-183 corridor (implying US-183 was the equal to US-75 in the Western half of Oklahoma). Another was a turnpike from Duncan to Davis. I'm glad neither materialized. Neither of those proposed routes would attract a lot of long distance traffic. OTOH US-75 is the direct connection between Tulsa and Dallas.

The Duncan to Davis turnpike was originally (partially) meant to be a way to give the tremendous traffic generated by Halliburton to their Davis satellite facility from the large manufacturing plant in east Duncan. By the late 80's the bottom had dropped out the the oil business (again) and the idea was dropped.  OK7 at that time was a 2 lane disaster with a tremendous amount of heavy equipment movement.

OK-7 between Duncan and I-35 was improved a little bit. It has a Super-2 grade and wide enough ROW for 4-laning from US-81 to just West of Ratliff City. The rest of the way to I-35 it's a little more limited. There's zero chance of that getting turned into a turnpike. Out of corridors in that area, I think US-81 is more important to improve. On the bright side the bypass around Duncan was built with enough ROW that it could be converted into a full blown 4-lane freeway. An extension from OK-7 up to US-81 in Marlow is in the works. Chickasha is going to get its own US-81 bypass soon.

Quote from: rte66manProperty taxes are off limits to the state. Millages are set at the local level and must fund certain things (schools being one).

Yet property taxes are one of the biggest sources (if not the biggest) of funding for local public schools.

Quote from: sparker on August 24, 2019, 03:45:36 PM
If by any chance I-45 eventually gets designated from DFW north to I-40, someone (not necessarily with ODOT -- more likely a local congress critter) might insert a designation clause within the yearly federal budget bill extending it further north -- and that part would certainly be simple.  But like with any "aftermarket" corridors, designation is merely the first step -- it's still up to the states to actually budget and let the various construction projects required to actually complete the corridor.  Look how many nascent Interstate corridors are legislatively designated in TX (and NC, for that matter!) and what percentage of the aggregate mileage of all of those is actually in operation as signed Interstate facilities.   Hint: not all that much!

It doesn't have to go through congress though, that's just how it's been done recently because some states got sick of AASHTO and FHWA telling them to go pound sand when they asked for designations for corridors that were decades from being viable. I think I-99 was the start of that?

QuoteSeems like every couple of years some section of the I-69 "family" opens up for a few miles here and there as budgetary considerations allow.  And something tells me, at least with TXDOT, that the massive Houston freeway rebuild will cause a budgetary "hole" for several funding cycles that will likely affect other projects statewide.  So while OK and its fiscal woes tend to cut off corridor concepts at their inception (just either not planning them or isolating whatever projects do crop up -- like the Calera upgrade -- in such a way as not to point toward the whole US 69 corridor, just a particular small section with its own rationale), TX tends to publish broad plans for these corridors -- usually overblown in regards to scope and who and what gets "serviced" -- but ekes the implementation out in very small chunks.  And the end result is that actual TX progress is not so different from that of OK; a small section of I-69E gets done west of Corpus and another SW of Houston, while OK's US 69 sees improvement at Calera and around McAlester.  The only difference is that OK actually views their projects as "spot" improvements rather than an integral part of a larger corridor concept, whereas with TX it's completing the corridor one baby step at a time -- a matter of, in TX, partially fulfilled "high hopes", whereas with OK it's "we're lucky to have the funds to do these small things; but don't expect much more than this!"  Different approaches; similar results.   

Vastly different results. Oklahoma finishes a project, and then sits around for 3-5 years before they even think of doing another. Texas finishes a project and there's already another one in the pipeline ready to to go, and there's dirt flying within a year or two at most. And then there are a couple more that have the planning and environmental studies done and are just waiting on funding, and several more that are in planning. Oklahoma's spot improvements are much smaller than Texas's too. The improvements at Calera are nice, but if TxDOT was in control, they'd be trying their best to bypass Tushka and Atoka.

^^^^^^^^^^
Recently the congressional route has proven to be more fruitful than a slog through the bowels of AASHTO when it comes to future Interstate corridor designations.  The problem is that once the designation is on the books, the various parties view it as a fait accompli, with actual implementation eked out as funding can be secured.  The one issue with the ISTEA addendum (sec. 1174) that authorized an Interstate corridor along US 69 and/or 75 was that it specifically predicated the designation on action from ODOT (or at least a state entity, which I suppose could mean a gubernatorial edict as well).  But given the organized opposition from Atoka and Stringtown re bypasses -- and the outsized political clout emanating from those voices -- it appears that ODOT has simply elected to "bracket" the politically troublesome areas with projects in McAlester to the north and Durant/Calera to the south.   Maybe they're hoping (against hope?) that the interim towns will eventually "get the hint" and agree to be circumvented.  We'll just have to see what transpires in the next decade or so.

And it is -- partially -- true that TxDOT has several projects in a row lined up in succession -- but those are primarily in situations where the Alliance for I-69, representing a consortium of interests within the served regions, is virtually right up their butt pressing for these projects to continue until the network is fulfilled.  Elsewhere, it's all about the "spot" project, even with the toll facilities near Austin and Tyler.  True, there are plans for I-14, I-2, the P-to-P, El Paso, and other statewide "big picture" projects -- but except for I-69 and some urban connectors, these are progressing at a relatively glacial rate -- and a few miles or an interchange or two at a time.  Part of that is simply that TX is huge -- and has more highway needs than short-term funds to address them (CA's in the same general boat!).   The fact that there's as much progress on I-69 as there is constitutes a minor miracle considering the pressures from the rest of the state for some sort of distributional parity.  But I will concur that TxDOT takes a decidedly more active role than ODOT when it comes to "paving the way" for projects; whereas ODOT is largely willing to indefinitely procrastinate about bypassing the various towns along the US 69 corridor, TxDOT representatives would likely be out in Atoka and environs attempting to wear down the objectors or otherwise negotiate some sort of agreement that would expedite a freeway alignment to be ready & waiting whenever funding was available.   Whereas TX may not always have $$ immediately available, they do prefer to have their "ducks in a row" when letting time arrives; ODOT -- not so much.  If a big potential income source like the Calera casino comes calling, they'll get off their duffs and cobble up a project; otherwise, inaction appears to be the order of the day. 

Quote from: sparkerBut given the organized opposition from Atoka and Stringtown re bypasses -- and the outsized political clout emanating from those voices -- it appears that ODOT has simply elected to "bracket" the politically troublesome areas with projects in McAlester to the north and Durant/Calera to the south.   Maybe they're hoping (against hope?) that the interim towns will eventually "get the hint" and agree to be circumvented.  We'll just have to see what transpires in the next decade or so.

Atoka and Stringtown, like so many rural towns in Oklahoma, are eventually going mostly dry up and become near ghost towns. Very few young people are sticking around those places after reaching adulthood due to many reasons (job opportunities and being able to party and get laid being two of the biggest motivations to head to the cities). The people who opposed converting US-69/75 into a freeway are not getting any younger. As they die off so will the strength of freeway opposition.

Meanwhile Oklahoma's lawmakers in bigger cities should be a little concerned about the condition of the US-69/75 corridor and the fact other high speed alternatives in the region will eventually be available. It may take decades for I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana to materialize. Same for I-69 in Southern Arkansas thru Mississippi. If either or both of those corridors were complete now they would definitely pull a decent amount of truck traffic (and the business associated with it) off of the US-69/75 corridor. If that happens towns like Atoka and Stringtown are going to be hit with a double whammy: shrinking youth/working age population and shrinking business on the highway corridor.

Quote from: sparker on August 26, 2019, 03:25:34 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
But I will concur that TxDOT takes a decidedly more active role than ODOT when it comes to "paving the way" for projects; whereas ODOT is largely willing to indefinitely procrastinate about bypassing the various towns along the US 69 corridor, TxDOT representatives would likely be out in Atoka and environs attempting to wear down the objectors or otherwise negotiate some sort of agreement that would expedite a freeway alignment to be ready & waiting whenever funding was available.   Whereas TX may not always have $$ immediately available, they do prefer to have their "ducks in a row" when letting time arrives; ODOT -- not so much.  If a big potential income source like the Calera casino comes calling, they'll get off their duffs and cobble up a project; otherwise, inaction appears to be the order of the day. 

Not true at all. When ODOT proposed the Muskogee bypass earlier this year (a very common sense freeway bypass to the west), the locals rose up with pitchforks and torches and howled mightily. The reps and senators all saw which way the wind was blowing and came out strongly against it too. With that much political headwind to fight, ODOT gave up and submitted a reduced proposal for incremental changes to the existing US69 through town.

ODOT has tons of projects in the pipeline, they just don't usually get revealed to the general public. My daughter worked in the Bridge division and gave me details on projects that at the time weren't on the 8-year Plan but were added later. The true problem is politics and lack of funds.  ODOT has lost nearly $1 BILLION in funding over the last 10 years that was siphoned off to non-roads items.  They may not appear to be as proactive as TxDOT, but that is apples and oranges to me.

Quote from: sparker on August 26, 2019, 03:25:34 PM
And it is -- partially -- true that TxDOT has several projects in a row lined up in succession -- but those are primarily in situations where the Alliance for I-69, representing a consortium of interests within the served regions, is virtually right up their butt pressing for these projects to continue until the network is fulfilled.  Elsewhere, it's all about the "spot" project, even with the toll facilities near Austin and Tyler.  True, there are plans for I-14, I-2, the P-to-P, El Paso, and other statewide "big picture" projects -- but except for I-69 and some urban connectors, these are progressing at a relatively glacial rate -- and a few miles or an interchange or two at a time.  Part of that is simply that TX is huge -- and has more highway needs than short-term funds to address them (CA's in the same general boat!).   The fact that there's as much progress on I-69 as there is constitutes a minor miracle considering the pressures from the rest of the state for some sort of distributional parity.  But I will concur that TxDOT takes a decidedly more active role than ODOT when it comes to "paving the way" for projects; whereas ODOT is largely willing to indefinitely procrastinate about bypassing the various towns along the US 69 corridor, TxDOT representatives would likely be out in Atoka and environs attempting to wear down the objectors or otherwise negotiate some sort of agreement that would expedite a freeway alignment to be ready & waiting whenever funding was available.   Whereas TX may not always have $$ immediately available, they do prefer to have their "ducks in a row" when letting time arrives; ODOT -- not so much.  If a big potential income source like the Calera casino comes calling, they'll get off their duffs and cobble up a project; otherwise, inaction appears to be the order of the day.

The I-69 system is an obvious example here, but there are others in the state, like Texas Triangle. I've been making the Dallas-Austin circuit at least a few times a year for the last decade, and I can't remember a single trip that wasn't interrupted by major road construction. I'm not talking simple mill and fill pavement projects either, but major widening. I-10 and I-45 have progressed as well, though not quite as fast as I-35. Some of it is a few miles at a time, but a few miles followed immediately by another few miles and so on adds up a lot faster than no miles at a time until a casino decides they need better access and is willing to chip in. You can compare aerials of US 69 from 1995 to the current condition and find that the only upgrades in nearly 25 years are the overpass on the south side of the Choctaw Casino in Durant, the recent freeway upgrade in McAlester, and the US 64 interchange at the south side of Muskogee. Oklahoma doesn't even seem that interested in the spot improvements, even in places where they could be done without pissing off the local revenue generators. How about a few ramps, a couple overpasses, and a couple short frontage roads to remove the at-grade intersections for the prison and highway 43? It's outside Stringtown so it won't hurt their speed trap (and might help it since it encourages traffic to go faster heading in to town), it actually helps the residents who are going to and from work there by making it easier to get in and out, and gets rid of a major source of cross traffic.

Quote from: rte66man on August 24, 2019, 10:26:03 PM
That stretch of I44 was built in 1953 to tie in the Turner Turnpike with the new 51st Street bridge.  I44 wasn't extended east for another few years.

This is correct. This inset from the 1954 official shows what is now I-44 crossing the old 51st Street bridge but ending just east of the river.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/7884/47272965641_6e0ca6f871_b.jpg)

The 1955 inset shows the same thing.

The 1956 inset shows it ending just east of the river but as proposed to Admiral.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/7816/46358589455_a3b9e6b26f_b.jpg)

The 1957 inset shows it ending at Yale, under construction to Memorial and proposed from Memorial to Admiral.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/7875/46358588285_09e9b8cb65_b.jpg)

The 1958 inset shows it ending between Memorial and Mingo. It also shows US 66 as connecting to the Will Rogers Turnpike and OK 33 at Cherokee Curve in Catoosa. It shows what is now I-44 ending at the 193rd Street interchange in Catoosa.

Also, note the proposed expressway system. The Keystone Expressway (US 64 west), the Cherokee Expressway (US 75 north), the Mingo Valley Expressway (US 169), the Crosstown Expressway (I-244 east), the rest of Skelly Drive from Memorial to 193rd (I-44), the Broken Arrow Expressway (OK 51), the Turkey Mountain Expressway (US 75 south), the Red Fork Expressway (I-244 west) and the infamous Inner Dispersal Loop (I-244/I-444) were all built and are open to traffic today. The Osage Expressway was built as far north as the Gilcrease (shown as "Sequoyah Loop" on this map) as the LL Tisdale Expressway. The Gilcrease is complete between the Tisdale and I-244 near the airport and 2 lanes are open from I-44/244 to 41st Street including a short freeway. The part from 41st Street and the Tisdale Parkway is being considered to be built as a turnpike. The Riverside Expressway which is unlabeled here was built as an arterial south of 31st Street but was unbuilt north to the IDL. There was going to be a freeway connecting the IDL/BA interchange at the SE corner of the loop that followed the Midland Valley Railroad right of way south to where it crossed the river then south along Riverside to I-44 but it was cancelled, and cancelled freeways in Oklahoma are rare. If this highway had been built, there would be an interchange where the Gathering Place is today. This is a rare one that I'm glad wasn't built.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/7814/46358587535_f69318573f_b.jpg)

The 1959 inset shows Skelly Drive as complete from the Turner Turnpike to the Will Rogers Turnpike and signed as I-44.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/7824/32331178727_faa3c512a9_b.jpg)

he 1960 map shows US 66 moved onto I-44 and old 66 between the I-44/244 interchange in west Tulsa and the I-44/11th Street interchange as Business 66. The stretch of 11th between I-44 in east Tulsa and 193rd E Ave then along 193rd/County Line Road north to I-44 was decommissioned entirely and is now a Tulsa city street.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/7836/32331175457_2de5dc346d_b.jpg)

My question is how was Skelly Drive signed before it was complete? I have seen references to a Bypass US 66 but it doesn't show up on any of the ODOT maps. Also, note that "Skelly Drive" clearly refers to the *freeway* and not just the *frontage roads* as has been claimed here by some. I know that I-44 between the Turner Turnpike and US 75 had some at-grade intersections and there was even an at-grade railroad crossing just east of the I-244 (then US 66/75) interchange.

The Chickasha bypass is not a new idea. This excerpt from the 1956 Grady County control section map shows that the US 81 bypass was on the books as early as the mid-1950s. The highway that became the HE Bailey Turnpike didn't show up on control section maps until a few years later. A proposed freeway paralleling US 277 does appear on the 1962 map.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48629818262_0348eae896_o.png)

So the Muskogee 75 bypass is officially dead? I thought it was only put on hold for the time being. If it's the former that is bullshit. How is Oklahoma supposed to be a world class functioning freeway network if these small towns prohibit improvements to it?

Oklahoma has a brand new source of revenue: medical cannabis. The state made $1.6 million from cannabis taxes and 2 million in state and local sales taxes in May. It has collected $10 million since the program began a year ago. This money is intended to go towards education and substance abuse programs so it won't go directly to highway funding but hopefully it will take a little pressure off of the rest of the funds. The program is wildly popular and has exceeded the state's estimates by more than double. The state predicted there would be 40,000-80,000 patients after the first year but as of the end of August, there are over 178,000 patients that have been approved and another 11,000 applications have come in and are being processed. 4.5% of Oklahomans are medical marijuana patients. Although a lot of social conservatives are against legalized cannabis, it has bipartisan support. One of the program's best friends is House Speaker Jon Echols, who made the medical program his pet project. It has succeeded beyond the wildest fantasies of anybody. Most of the patients I see in dispensaries are 50 or older. A lot of them are conservative. Somebody at the golf club or the rodeo tells them that they tried medical cannabis and it worked to ease their symptoms. These folks are sick of being in pain and they decide to give it a chance. They get their cards and start using it and they find that it doesn't only work, but it works well with minimal negative side effects. Some of them even like the way it makes them feel. They go to church and tell their friends how much it helped them and word gets around and a lot of minds are changed. The negative stigmas are fading. The stereotype of the lazy stoner is not accurate and cannabis is truly mainstream. Now if the rest of the states will get off their asses and legalize it.

I think the most important next step is for the feds to completely deschedule it and legalize it nationally.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 27, 2019, 08:29:20 AM
So the Muskogee 75 bypass is officially dead? I thought it was only put on hold for the time being. If it's the former that is bullshit. How is Oklahoma supposed to be a world class functioning freeway network if these small towns prohibit improvements to it?

It got dropped from the latest version of the 8 Year plan

Quote from: bugo on August 27, 2019, 08:18:16 AM
The Chickasha bypass is not a new idea. This excerpt from the 1956 Grady County control section map shows that the US 81 bypass was on the books as early as the mid-1950s. The highway that became the HE Bailey Turnpike didn't show up on control section maps until a few years later. A proposed freeway paralleling US 277 does appear on the 1962 map.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48629818262_0348eae896_o.png)

And part of it was built that year directly north from the bend south of Ninnekah then back east at OK19.  That is why there is such a large median where it bends east.  It was always known a Chickasha bypass was planned. I can remember riding that part in 1964 after the Bailey was opened.  81 was a 30's era concrete 2-lane north from Rush Springs to where the new 4 lane section started. It wasn't unitl; 67 or 68 that 81 was 4 laned from RushSprings to Ninnekah. The Rush Springs bypass even later than that.

Quote from: rte66man on August 26, 2019, 11:27:36 PM

Quote from: sparker on August 26, 2019, 03:25:34 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
But I will concur that TxDOT takes a decidedly more active role than ODOT when it comes to "paving the way" for projects; whereas ODOT is largely willing to indefinitely procrastinate about bypassing the various towns along the US 69 corridor, TxDOT representatives would likely be out in Atoka and environs attempting to wear down the objectors or otherwise negotiate some sort of agreement that would expedite a freeway alignment to be ready & waiting whenever funding was available.   Whereas TX may not always have $$ immediately available, they do prefer to have their "ducks in a row" when letting time arrives; ODOT -- not so much.  If a big potential income source like the Calera casino comes calling, they'll get off their duffs and cobble up a project; otherwise, inaction appears to be the order of the day. 

Not true at all. When ODOT proposed the Muskogee bypass earlier this year (a very common sense freeway bypass to the west), the locals rose up with pitchforks and torches and howled mightily. The reps and senators all saw which way the wind was blowing and came out strongly against it too. With that much political headwind to fight, ODOT gave up and submitted a reduced proposal for incremental changes to the existing US69 through town.

ODOT has tons of projects in the pipeline, they just don't usually get revealed to the general public. My daughter worked in the Bridge division and gave me details on projects that at the time weren't on the 8-year Plan but were added later. The true problem is politics and lack of funds.  ODOT has lost nearly $1 BILLION in funding over the last 10 years that was siphoned off to non-roads items.  They may not appear to be as proactive as TxDOT, but that is apples and oranges to me.

So what is revealed here is that (a) ODOT is more than willing to lay down and play dead when political (read NIMBY/local revenue) opposition rears it head, and (b) they tend to hold back public info on projects, partially likely because of (a) above!  In that case, it would be clear that virtually any warranted project in TX would much easier to shepherd through the planning/construction process than one in OK -- simply because either TxDOT and their associates are able to smooth over (or circumvent) locally-derived issues and actually get things past the preliminary planning stages, while ODOT will turn tail and backtrack when money politics intervenes, whether from a larger regional center like Muskogee or a smaller entity such as Atoka or even Stringtown.  That policy -- or lack thereof -- doesn't bode well for even a freeway extension limited to the federally designated portion south of I-40.  OK residents and those who need to traverse the state have my profound sympathy; someone needs to send a big tube of K-Y Jelly to ODOT -- at this point, they could use some sort of relief! 

Quote from: sparkerSo what is revealed here is that (a) ODOT is more than willing to lay down and play dead when political (read NIMBY/local revenue) opposition rears it head, and (b) they tend to hold back public info on projects, partially likely because of (a) above!

Nah, actually there is a different game involved: the two big cities in OK versus everybody else.

The US-69 corridor is in urgent need of upgrades all along the route from the Red River up to Big Cabin. But there are plenty of other highway corridors elsewhere in Oklahoma that urgently need upgrades (or just repair work) too. The state has a very limited amount of funding to spread around for all these projects. Representatives in these affected areas have to do their own bit of lobbying and campaigning just to get attention to their needs. The big cities always have highways in need of major (and very expensive) improvements. That gobbles up a hell of a lot of the highway funding pie.

So if the folks in Muskogee don't want a new freeway then ODOT is going to be only too happy to blow the money that would have been spent on that project on something else in someone else's city or town. ODOT didn't lay down and play dead for anybody.

I think the folks in Muskogee looked a gift horse in the mouth. They passed up on something that would have made US-69 a much better and safer highway through their town. They passed up on something that would have fueled new business and residential growth. Now ODOT will do something far more modest (hardly anything at all) on the existing US-69 corridor. Meanwhile the heavy truck traffic can keep putting its wear and tear on the infrastructure along the existing route.

Long term, the small cities and towns along US-69 in Oklahoma need to understand all those cars and trucks that currently use US-69 to bypass OKC and Tulsa aren't going to take that route forever. The stop lights suck. The speed traps are rage inducing and essentially a loud "F.U." to all the long distance motorists using that road. When other limited access alternatives open, like I-49 or I-69 in the next state, many are going to take their driving and their business elsewhere.

I don't even understand the logic of these folks. Freeways and turnpikes do have exits. Drivers do leave the super highways to get fuel, eat, sleep and buy stuff just like they possibly could driving along a road in town with a bunch of stop lights. If a motorist gets snagged in a town's speed trap he's not going to feel like buying shit from any business in that town. Speed traps aren't as much of a thing on super highways.

I don't really see I-49 taking over as a primary route between DFW and anywhere. US 69 will remain a better option for traveling to NWA, KC, and St. Louis. It's mostly flat and straight, while I-49 will be neither. If/when Arkansas and Missouri get I-57 complete from Walnut Ridge to Sikeston, I do see that becoming the new primary route between DFW and anything along or east of I-57, including Chicago, but probably not St. Louis since that ends up about 80 miles longer. It may affect the choice for travel between Houston and NWA or KC, but how much of that is currently using US 69 vs. US 59/259 is something I don't know.

The Federal Government seems derelict of duty compared to when Eisenhower built the interstates. There are still a number of major diagonal routes in need of limited access high speed highways for traffic that aren't getting built. Midwest to North Carolina for one, and US 69 from the Red River to Big Cabin. It still is shorter and faster from Dallas to Illiniois, but watching my clock and comparing the miles on the speedometer it could have been possibly up to 90 minutes faster if an Interstate. I really lost a lot of time going north when I hit Muskogee up to the Big Cabin terminus. While you have to watch your speed on the southern section due to the speed traps you don't really go through the constant small towns at 35mph the way you do on the northern part. US 51 from Decatur IL to Pana is a non Interstate four lane highway built much better, it goes around all the little towns like Mowequa and Macon and slows you only to 55 with a flashing yellow sign where the cross street runs. Bypasses on the north part would be a welcome improvement even without a full upgrade.

*(Do note that the alternate route on I-57 has one of the worst speed traps in the entire country in Pulaski County Illinois, the first 25 miles in the southern tip, the local county patrols always have at least 3-5 vehicles pulling everyone over they possibly can for even going 1 mile over to raise revenue. Cairo is broke and looks like that abandoned town outside Chernobyl, it makes Flint look prosperous.)

Quote from: captkirk_4 on August 28, 2019, 09:01:56 AM
for even going 1 mile over to raise revenue.

Cite your source?

Quote from: kphoger on August 28, 2019, 01:43:57 PM

Quote from: captkirk_4 on August 28, 2019, 09:01:56 AM
for even going 1 mile over to raise revenue.

Cite your source?

A LEO can technically pull you over for that, no?

At any rate, I know many I've talked to are opposed to this, but I would like to see a ban on muni police patrolling interstates or highways(controlled access highways) as well as Sheriff's on incorporated areas. This would prevent over policing and shift resources to areas needed more than just cracking down on speeding.

Disclaimer: yes I speed.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 28, 2019, 12:42:38 AM

Quote from: sparkerSo what is revealed here is that (a) ODOT is more than willing to lay down and play dead when political (read NIMBY/local revenue) opposition rears it head, and (b) they tend to hold back public info on projects, partially likely because of (a) above!

Nah, actually there is a different game involved: the two big cities in OK versus everybody else.

The US-69 corridor is in urgent need of upgrades all along the route from the Red River up to Big Cabin. But there are plenty of other highway corridors elsewhere in Oklahoma that urgently need upgrades (or just repair work) too. The state has a very limited amount of funding to spread around for all these projects. Representatives in these affected areas have to do their own bit of lobbying and campaigning just to get attention to their needs. The big cities always have highways in need of major (and very expensive) improvements. That gobbles up a hell of a lot of the highway funding pie.

So if the folks in Muskogee don't want a new freeway then ODOT is going to be only too happy to blow the money that would have been spent on that project on something else in someone else's city or town. ODOT didn't lay down and play dead for anybody.

I think the folks in Muskogee looked a gift horse in the mouth. They passed up on something that would have made US-69 a much better and safer highway through their town. They passed up on something that would have fueled new business and residential growth. Now ODOT will do something far more modest (hardly anything at all) on the existing US-69 corridor. Meanwhile the heavy truck traffic can keep putting its wear and tear on the infrastructure along the existing route.

Long term, the small cities and towns along US-69 in Oklahoma need to understand all those cars and trucks that currently use US-69 to bypass OKC and Tulsa aren't going to take that route forever. The stop lights suck. The speed traps are rage inducing and essentially a loud "F.U." to all the long distance motorists using that road. When other limited access alternatives open, like I-49 or I-69 in the next state, many are going to take their driving and their business elsewhere.

I don't even understand the logic of these folks. Freeways and turnpikes do have exits. Drivers do leave the super highways to get fuel, eat, sleep and buy stuff just like they possibly could driving along a road in town with a bunch of stop lights. If a motorist gets snagged in a town's speed trap he's not going to feel like buying shit from any business in that town. Speed traps aren't as much of a thing on super highways.

Like Breezewood, there is a highly bounded rationality in play with Muskogee -- they apparently feel backed into a corner, economically speaking, and see no recourse except to maintain the status quo regarding patronage of the motels and restaurants along the current US 69 facility.  Now I can understand a lot of that -- if they aren't part of a chain, a hotel/motel generally doesn't have the resources to simply pick up and relocate a mile or so away at a new interchange -- and there are a lot of those independent businesses along that street.  They see an effectively captive audience that given the correct circumstances will elect to stop and stay and/or eat as long as they're having to slog along the street anyway.  An alternate way of looking at that would be that the current situation provides the full measure of travelers, since everyone, commercial or recreational, using US 69 is funneled down the street; if the current street is relegated to a simple business loop of an outer freeway bypass -- regardless of big blue logo signage or a shitload of billboards in advance of the loop exit -- there will be some significant loss of business from those travelers who simply elect to stay on the freeway.  The current situation is egalitarianism of inconvenience: everyone has to run the gauntlet of current 69; there exists a calculus that infers that of the aggregate traffic some of it will stick around long enough to provide revenue.  Providing a convenient avoidance tool (the bypass, of course) more often than not would result in a decision by a potential customer under the current idiom to simply not deal with Muskogee -- period.  And those lodging and restaurant chains with capital resources will deploy facilities around the bypass interchanges and further suck revenue away from the "old road" facilities, particularly the independents.   And considering that it's more than likely most of the existing businesses are locally owned, reaction emanating from Muskogee is hardly surprising -- and apparently there's enough local clout to influence ODOT decisions.  And when it comes to favoring local residents over through commercial traffic (and the locals are voters) it's pretty much a no-brainer to the agency or their political handlers.  So unless a very generous compensation package could be offered to the businesses arrayed along US 69 (and being OK, that's probably not in the cards) any further action re a bypass likely just isn't going to happen.   

Even if businesses don't move to the frontage roads of a controlled access highway, there are GAS FOOD LODGING signs that are installed. If people need to shop at a business, they will exit.

Demand wouldn't be induced as it already exists. The need for this real is real and that includes services-- not just the road itself. Any services moved from in the town to the new roadway are a product of an evolving town. There are many examples of successful towns like Muskogee in the vicinity of a city like Tulsa and Muskogee can find its way. I however am skeptical that this will be a detriment to businesses downtown and I believe this will be nothing but a good thing for the city. The road in town will only become more congested and polluted over time. Building the new road won't cause anymore through traffic than what will occur anyways.

Quote from: sparkerLike Breezewood, there is a highly bounded rationality in play with Muskogee -- they apparently feel backed into a corner, economically speaking, and see no recourse except to maintain the status quo regarding patronage of the motels and restaurants along the current US 69 facility.

Breezewood is a very different town than Muskogee. Its circumstances are very different. Breezewood would probably dry up and disappear if I-70 didn't have that NON-Interstate quality gap between its "free" section going into Maryland and the Penn Turnpike. With all the modern RFID toll tags people have, along with pay-by-plate technology, there's really no good reason for I-70 to have that gap in Breezewood anymore. What critical industry is being served by that gap in Breezewood? Last time I checked it's just a few restaurants and gas stations.

Muskogee is a bigger town. It's really a small city. Muskogee already has the Muskogee Turnpike bypassing its East side. That hasn't killed the town. Peak Blvd works like a Southern bypass for the town. It's not a freeway (a 4 lane divided expressway with freeway upgrade potential), but Peak Blvd is well South of Muskogee's downtown area. It's not killing the town. The current US-69 path runs along the West side of town. A new US-69 freeway a little farther West would have given Muskogee something close to a near freeway loop all the way around town.

---

Uh, "inducing demand on the new route," otherwise known as attracting new business is part of the idea. Most small cities want to grow. They want to attract more businesses, jobs, etc to improve the local economy. The big positive about a US-69 freeway on the West side of town is that it would pull a lot of heavy trucks off local streets, making those local streets last longer and make them safer for the cars using them.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 28, 2019, 11:57:41 PMDemand wouldn't be induced as it already exists. The need for this real is real and that includes services-- not just the road itself. Any services moved from in the town to the new roadway are a product of an evolving town. There are many examples of successful towns like Muskogee in the vicinity of a city like Tulsa and Muskogee can find its way. I however am skeptical that this will be a detriment to businesses downtown and I believe this will be nothing but a good thing for the city. The road in town will only become more congested and polluted over time. Building the new road won't cause anymore through traffic than what will occur anyways.

It would not negate its benefit. The new road would be a dual carriage way with bridges and ramps. The businesses would be a safe distance on frontage roads. The denizens of Muskogee worry about lack of exposure to highway traffic. And even if a business did lose exposure to highway traffic, they would still get plenty of business from citizens of Muskogee. Muskogee is not Stringtown.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 29, 2019, 12:43:29 AM

Quote from: sparkerLike Breezewood, there is a highly bounded rationality in play with Muskogee -- they apparently feel backed into a corner, economically speaking, and see no recourse except to maintain the status quo regarding patronage of the motels and restaurants along the current US 69 facility.

Breezewood is a very different town than Muskogee. Its circumstances are very different. Breezewood would probably dry up and disappear if I-70 didn't have that NON-Interstate quality gap between its "free" section going into Maryland and the Penn Turnpike. With all the modern RFID toll tags people have, along with pay-by-plate technology, there's really no good reason for I-70 to have that gap in Breezewood anymore. What critical industry is being served by that gap in Breezewood? Last time I checked it's just a few restaurants and gas stations.

Muskogee is a bigger town. It's really a small city. Muskogee already has the Muskogee Turnpike bypassing its East side. That hasn't killed the town. Peak Blvd works like a Southern bypass for the town. It's not a freeway (a 4 lane divided expressway with freeway upgrade potential), but Peak Blvd is well South of Muskogee's downtown area. It's not killing the town. The current US-69 path runs along the West side of town. A new US-69 freeway a little farther West would have given Muskogee something close to a near freeway loop all the way around town.

Uh, "inducing demand on the new route," otherwise known as attracting new business is part of the idea. Most small cities want to grow. They want to attract more businesses, jobs, etc to improve the local economy. The big positive about a US-69 freeway on the West side of town is that it would pull a lot of heavy trucks off local streets, making those local streets last longer and make them safer for the cars using them.

Then ODOT better install bridges and ramps for Peak Boulevard before Muskogee develops that area. I wonder how much Muskogee would object to ODOT building spot upgrades for Peak Boulevard.

Just some of the local reaction to the Muskogee bypass:

https://muskogeenow.com/muskogee-vents-during-meeting-with-odot-on-proposed-69-bypass

https://www.muskogeepolitico.com/2018/05/gov-fallin-vetoes-bill-that-would-block.html

https://www.muskogeephoenix.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/the-people-speak-no-need-for-a-us-bypass-of/article_3ba36456-1c30-55cd-8654-ef995f56a27f.html

Bobby was spot on. Why should ODOT spend its scanty resources on a road with that much opposition when there are other worthy project that could be advanced.

I don't think there is a neighborhood on the proposed route and this this growth is organic growth. There is more to cities than just building for the city itself directly. Cities have to address regional and national needs-- that is what this road does while benefiting the city at the same time.

---

You have no way of knowing that! This freeway will open up new opportunities that didn't exist before. There is no non-tolled freeway in Muskogee. This would allow for new businesses to consider locations along the proposed freeway AND allowing more opportunities for downtown to "right-size" the streets possibly adding bike lanes or other improvements if a reduction in lanes are warranted.

What is also important to remember is this freeway in no way shape or form will be negative for the city. It will better the US-69 corridor as a whole which will be a positive. Why are you arguing against this? You would rather see no change, trucks and through traffic continuing to go straight through downtown causing unnecessary congestion and pollution?

Quote from: rte66man on August 29, 2019, 09:37:00 AM

Bobby was spot on. Why should ODOT spend its scanty resources on a road wit that much opposition when there are other worthy project that could be advanced.

Because this isn't just about Muskogee, it is about the US-69 corridor which is a heavily used road and Oklahoma would be wise to get on the ball or risk loosing out to Arkansas if and when I-49 and I-69 are fully built. If Muskogee is causing that much of an issue then fuck them. Move the corridor out of the town completely. I am sure there is another town that would gladly take it. Decommission the road through the town and turn over maintenance to the county or tear it out. If they want to be assholes then treat them like it.  :spin:

^^^^^^^^^^^
It's not Muskogee at large that would "dry up and blow away" if a US 69 bypass were built -- just the road-related businesses along the current arterial stretch in the west part of town.  According to the maps and diagrams I've seen about the likely alignment of such a bypass, it appears to be deliberately configured to take as few developed properties as possible -- so the notion of someone living "near" that alignment (as mentioned in one of the cited articles) actually being required to move is a bit misleading -- now if they choose to move because of increased noise, etc. -- then that's a separate story -- a freeway generally affecting a specific area rather than prompting an application of eminent domain.  It's also interesting to note that Muskogee officials' objection to the project is its extended developmental timeframe -- apparently their preference is that if it is to be constructed, the sooner the better so the city can plan and deploy any physical adjustments, getting those out of the way so some semblance of normality would be restored.  It's more the citizenry that objects to the bypass rather than the city itself, which appears at least resigned to the fact that it will eventually happen.  Also, the fact that the governor vetoed a bill that would have given cities effective veto power over state highway projects -- despite the backing from her own party -- indicates that ODOT may be down but not out in regards to US 69.  But it seems as if it's more than a few folks living along the route that don't want any alteration from the status quo, not the public entities such as cities and counties.  My guess is that while the Muskogee bypass is dormant for now, it eventually will be revived, particularly if other freeway segments start cropping up along the 69 corridor. 

Quote from: sparker on August 29, 2019, 05:28:10 PMMy guess is that while the Muskogee bypass is dormant for now, it eventually will be revived, particularly if other freeway segments start cropping up along the 69 corridor.

I suspect this is the case. OkDOT has shelved it for now. In this area they should focus on the US-75/I-44 interchange before the Muskogee Bypass.

I think a completed I-57 from Little Rock to Sikeston would pull a lot of traffic in Texas bound for the Northeast US completely off the US-69 corridor. The traffic shift might be enough to that a lot of the road side businesses in Atoka and Stringtown would be seeing fewer vehicles and fewer customers. Same goes for the tin horn speed trap operations. I-57 would be a thru route from Dallas to Chicago with Little Rock being the only big city along the path. It bypasses St Louis, which a good number of drivers would like considering the current level of crime in the St Louis metro.

I think if I-57 gets completed well ahead of a possible US-69 conversion the folks in Atoka and Stringtown won't ever have to worry about a US-69 freeway bypassing their towns ever again. But they won't get to base much, if any, of their local business on the highway economy either. Various shops next to the highway will close.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 29, 2019, 09:14:37 PM
I think a completed I-57 from Little Rock to Sikeston would pull a lot of traffic in Texas bound for the Northeast US completely off the US-69 corridor. The traffic shift might be enough to that a lot of the road side businesses in Atoka and Stringtown would be seeing fewer vehicles and fewer customers. Same goes for the tin horn speed trap operations. I-57 would be a thru route from Dallas to Chicago with Little Rock being the only big city along the path. It bypasses St Louis, which a good number of drivers would like considering the current level of crime in the St Louis metro.

I don't recall St. Louis having that many expressway shootings compared to Chicagoland - or have I just not been hearing about them?

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 29, 2019, 09:14:37 PM
I think if I-57 gets completed well ahead of a possible US-69 conversion the folks in Atoka and Stringtown won't ever have to worry about a US-69 freeway bypassing their towns ever again. But they won't get to base much, if any, of their local business on the highway economy either. Various shops next to the highway will close.

I am not so sure.  Using Google (albeit with today's facilities), from just north of the Circle Interchange on I-90/I-94 to I-35E just south of I-30 in Dallas I get 968 miles/13 hours 59 minutes via I-57, I-55, I-40 and I-30.  Going via US 60 to Poplar Bluff, then down is 958 miles/14 hours 7 minutes.  The I-55 - I-44 - US 69 - US 75 route comes in at 925 miles/14 hours 17 minutes.  Unless Arkansas builds I-57 on a very straight route (doubtful based on highway planning these days), there's not going to be much additional savings distance wise.

Now if the origin was on I-290 just south of the I-90 cloverleaf in Schaumburg, the I-44/US 69/US 75 option begins having an advantage time-wise per Google.

Then there's still going to be users of the US 69 corridor coming from/going to Kansas City and beyond. 

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 29, 2019, 06:33:48 PM

Quote from: sparker on August 29, 2019, 05:28:10 PMMy guess is that while the Muskogee bypass is dormant for now, it eventually will be revived, particularly if other freeway segments start cropping up along the 69 corridor.

I suspect this is the case. OkDOT has shelved it for now. In this area they should focus on the US-75/I-44 interchange before the Muskogee Bypass.

Tulsa is in ODOT Division 8, Muskogee is Division 1.

Quote from: Revive 755 on August 29, 2019, 11:17:29 PM
I am not so sure.  Using Google (albeit with today's facilities), from just north of the Circle Interchange on I-90/I-94 to I-35E just south of I-30 in Dallas I get 968 miles/13 hours 59 minutes via I-57, I-55, I-40 and I-30.  Going via US 60 to Poplar Bluff, then down is 958 miles/14 hours 7 minutes.  The I-55 - I-44 - US 69 - US 75 route comes in at 925 miles/14 hours 17 minutes.  Unless Arkansas builds I-57 on a very straight route (doubtful based on highway planning these days), there's not going to be much additional savings distance wise.

Now if the origin was on I-290 just south of the I-90 cloverleaf in Schaumburg, the I-44/US 69/US 75 option begins having an advantage time-wise per Google.

Then there's still going to be users of the US 69 corridor coming from/going to Kansas City and beyond.

US 67 north of Walnut Ridge is much worse than US 69 in Oklahoma. South of Pocahontas it's mostly a 60mph Arkansas expressway, and north it's a 55mph 2 lane road, and Pocahontas and Corning are annoying to get through. Upgrading along the same route to a 70/75mph interstate would be a huge improvement, and skipping Pocahontas entirely and paralleling the railroad would be even better. If and when the upgrade is complete, all Dallas-Chicago traffic is making the switch, and Dallas-Milwaukee you flip a coin whether it's better to reach I-39 via the all-Interstate Little Rock/I-57/I-55/I-255/I-55 and live with the backtrack on I-55 or go more direct via US 69/I-44/I-270/I-55 and live with Oklahoma.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 28, 2019, 04:38:44 PM

Quote from: kphoger on August 28, 2019, 01:43:57 PM

Quote from: captkirk_4 on August 28, 2019, 09:01:56 AM
for even going 1 mile over to raise revenue.

Cite your source?

A LEO can technically pull you over for that, no?

Yes they can.  I wasn't doubting that.  What I'm doubting is his assertion that people are actually being pulled over for 1 over the limit.

Quote from: kphoger on August 30, 2019, 02:55:47 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 28, 2019, 04:38:44 PM

Quote from: kphoger on August 28, 2019, 01:43:57 PM

Quote from: captkirk_4 on August 28, 2019, 09:01:56 AM
for even going 1 mile over to raise revenue.

Cite your source?

A LEO can technically pull you over for that, no?

Yes they can.  I wasn't doubting that.  What I'm doubting is his assertion that people are actually being pulled over for 1 over the limit.

That would be insane. I was pulled over for doing 7MPH over the limit once in Arcadia and I politely asked the cop if pulling people over for this small of a speed variance is the norm and he replied yes but typically they will issue only warnings. Usually they pull people over to see if they are DUI.

I was once on the turnpike west of Tulsa, and a turnpike highway patrol officer was going exactly the speed limit in the left lane.  I crept up alongside him in the right lane at 1 mph over the limit.  He revved his engine a few times, looked at me, and pointed to his radar device.  I slowed down.  Then he jumped over two lanes to take the next exit.

Quote from: kphoger on August 30, 2019, 03:30:25 PM
I was once on the turnpike west of Tulsa, and a turnpike highway patrol officer was going exactly the speed limit in the left lane.  I crept up alongside him in the right lane at 1 mph over the limit.  He revved his engine a few times, looked at me, and pointed to his radar device.  I slowed down.  Then he jumped over two lanes to take the next exit.

For some reason I have bad luck with tickets and troopers in NE part of OK.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 28, 2019, 04:38:44 PM
At any rate, I know many I've talked to are opposed to this, but I would like to see a ban on muni police patrolling interstates or highways(controlled access highways) as well as Sheriff's on incorporated areas. This would prevent over policing and shift resources to areas needed more than just cracking down on speeding.

Could be worse, such as Iowa where the locals put speed cameras on the interstates, with Le Claire possibly putting one on I-80 near the Illinois border (watch it be at the bottom of the descent into the Mississippi River valley). 

Though for Illinois, is there already some prohibition of this type?  For the past several years the only village/city police cars I have seen on the interstates have been Troy on I-55/I-70 (usually south of IL 162).

Quote from: Revive 755I don't recall St. Louis having that many expressway shootings compared to Chicagoland - or have I just not been hearing about them?

I don't know about highway shootings, but overall St Louis has been the most dangerous large US city for the past few years on a per capita basis. In the murders per 100,000 population figure St Louis has a ratio of around 60 per 100,000, which is freaking terrible. Chicago is rough, but has around half that rate. New York City has a murder rate of about 3 per 100,000 (in 2018 NYC had fewer than 300 murders in the 5 boroughs, which have 8.5 million people).

Anyway St Louis is a major junction point in the highway system. Lots of people stop there to eat, sleep, fuel-up, etc. But it's risky doing so.

Quote from: Revive 755I am not so sure.  Using Google (albeit with today's facilities), from just north of the Circle Interchange on I-90/I-94 to I-35E just south of I-30 in Dallas I get 968 miles/13 hours 59 minutes via I-57, I-55, I-40 and I-30.  Going via US 60 to Poplar Bluff, then down is 958 miles/14 hours 7 minutes.  The I-55 - I-44 - US 69 - US 75 route comes in at 925 miles/14 hours 17 minutes.  Unless Arkansas builds I-57 on a very straight route (doubtful based on highway planning these days), there's not going to be much additional savings distance wise.

Even if there is no substantial mileage savings plenty of drivers, be they commercial drivers or otherwise, will stick to the Interstates even if they go substantially out of their way. If the usual route has lots of speed zones and speed traps, which US-69 in Southern OK absolutely does, they will really really want to use an alternate all-Interstate route.

Quote from: Revive 755Then there's still going to be users of the US 69 corridor coming from/going to Kansas City and beyond.

For Kansas City a lot of drivers will just stay on I-35 and avoid the stop lights and speed traps of US-69 completely.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 30, 2019, 04:02:53 PM

Quote from: kphoger on August 30, 2019, 03:30:25 PM
I was once on the turnpike west of Tulsa, and a turnpike highway patrol officer was going exactly the speed limit in the left lane.  I crept up alongside him in the right lane at 1 mph over the limit.  He revved his engine a few times, looked at me, and pointed to his radar device.  I slowed down.  Then he jumped over two lanes to take the next exit.

For some reason I have bad luck with tickets and troopers in NE part of OK.

You made "The List" (thanks to Chris Jericho)  :bigass:

Quote from: kphoger on August 28, 2019, 01:43:57 PM

Quote from: captkirk_4 on August 28, 2019, 09:01:56 AM
for even going 1 mile over to raise revenue.

Cite your source?

Scuttlebut from a guy I work with from Paducah who knows the area and warned me before driving that route. I know it is very bad because I've driven through there 5 times and each trip I see a minimum of at least 3 county patrols with someone stopped. Last time I slowed to 67 and was slowly passed by a car with Texas plates, couldn't have been going much over 73-75 and five minutes later he was pulled over.

You forget that it's not about safety but revenue, they are highwaymen running a revenue operation, they seem to work nonstop, as soon as one stop is over the lights go on immediately to tax the next one going through. Cairo is a desolate abandoned town with no economic base, I went into the town itself to the meeting of the rivers and there are signs reminding the few denizens left to keep their lawns under control due to "rodents and snakes." Looks like the overgrown ruins of Pripyat outside Chernobyl. Stringtown on 69 is the one I see warnings about, but the 3 times I drove through the active speed trap I saw was around Caney.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 25, 2019, 12:44:26 AM
OK-7 between Duncan and I-35 was improved a little bit. It has a Super-2 grade and wide enough ROW for 4-laning from US-81 to just West of Ratliff City.

When OK7 was plowed through Duncan just south of Bois d'arc in the early 70's, it temporarily ended just east of the Halliburton manufacturing facility with ramps and an embankment that indicated the intent was to make the extension east to Velma a freeway.  When it was finally extended, they came in and flattened the embankment to create a regular intersection with Oklahoma Hills Drive.

Quote
An extension from OK-7 up to US-81 in Marlow is in the works.

Always rumored but I've never seen any plans.

I don't know the time line of when the project is supposed to start. The local TV station in Lawton ran a story about the extension a few months ago. It wasn't long ago that the Southern end of the Duncan bypass (a new "Y" extension to US-81 farther South of Duncan) opened.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 03, 2019, 08:50:18 PM
I don't know the time line of when the project is supposed to start. The local TV station in Lawton ran a story about the extension a few months ago. It wasn't long ago that the Southern end of the Duncan bypass (a new "Y" extension to US-81 farther South of Duncan) opened.

I posted some pics of it on another thread.  Nice that the extension is limited access but I got the feeling the roadbed was substandard.

Yeah, it's almost like a low cost "place holder" configuration. If or when the Duncan Bypass is improved into an actual 4 lane freeway with a second set of lanes, bridges, etc ODOT will likely have to put down something significantly better. On the bright side they got what I feel is the most important step out of the way: securing the right of way for any potential future freeway.

Not sure if it was posted here but the Calera US-69/75 upgrade has broken ground and should be in full swing or soon will be.

https://www.ok.gov/triton/modules/newsroom/newsroom_article.php?id=277&article_id=54459

While on a weekend trip this week, I noticed that (most of) the US 69 (and US 69-US 75) exits have been numbered since my last trip up that way.  Anyone know when it was done and if any reason was given at the time?

2009 MUTCD requires all exits be numbered, regardless of whether they are an Interstate or not.

ODOT occasionally pretends to believe in the MUTCD.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 26, 2020, 02:54:07 PM
2009 MUTCD requires all exits be numbered, regardless of whether they are an Interstate or not.

Wow, didn't know that.  That should make it interesting for TX, to see TxDOT's approach to numbering exits on highways like US 287 and US 175 that have mixed freeway and at-grade segments.

Does that extend to state highways that have exits also?

Yes.

Quote from: -- US 175 -- on July 26, 2020, 02:45:37 PM
While on a weekend trip this week, I noticed that (most of) the US 69 (and US 69-US 75) exits have been numbered since my last trip up that way.  Anyone know when it was done and if any reason was given at the time?

As they enter the state together from the south, I'm curious as to whether both the US 69 freeway sections north of McAlester and any US 75 freeway segments in the Tulsa area will reflect mileage from that common entry point? 

Quote from: -- US 175 -- on July 26, 2020, 02:45:37 PM
While on a weekend trip this week, I noticed that (most of) the US 69 (and US 69-US 75) exits have been numbered since my last trip up that way.  Anyone know when it was done and if any reason was given at the time?

No idea, but I did notice the last time I was up that way that the mileage posts along US 69 had been pulled.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 26, 2020, 02:54:07 PM
ODOT occasionally pretends to believe in the MUTCD.

https://goo.gl/maps/RcYFSZzTubwefxn8A
https://goo.gl/maps/KwMUKnpdCyy2LDuq6
https://goo.gl/maps/Vv72qkANj8uZPkoJ7
https://goo.gl/maps/wm3yX4dixYooiKa76
https://goo.gl/maps/u4tjAm6kKRMUk1bn6
https://goo.gl/maps/exo14HQr6zWoBex5A
https://goo.gl/maps/SwDApiwPvNZvMJhz9
https://goo.gl/maps/24xQPi4UfTc314Mq8

Quote from: stridentweasel on July 27, 2020, 06:35:44 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 26, 2020, 02:54:07 PM
ODOT occasionally pretends to believe in the MUTCD.

https://goo.gl/maps/RcYFSZzTubwefxn8A
https://goo.gl/maps/KwMUKnpdCyy2LDuq6
https://goo.gl/maps/Vv72qkANj8uZPkoJ7
https://goo.gl/maps/wm3yX4dixYooiKa76
https://goo.gl/maps/u4tjAm6kKRMUk1bn6
https://goo.gl/maps/exo14HQr6zWoBex5A
https://goo.gl/maps/SwDApiwPvNZvMJhz9
https://goo.gl/maps/24xQPi4UfTc314Mq8

Those are relatively new (within the last 2 years). ODOT reconfigured the service roads

Quote from: US71 on July 27, 2020, 11:06:09 AM
Those are relatively new (within the last 2 years). ODOT reconfigured the service roads

I know, and they're gems of questionable sign design!  Except for the last one, which is beautiful, except for the lack of the exit numbers US 69 was supposed to be getting, and the "2nd Exit" text in the ground-mounted sign being in destination-style mixed-case text, rather than an action message.

Edit:  Oh, I also love this!
https://goo.gl/maps/RPj4JeWbTrG7Rbjb9
https://goo.gl/maps/n44Q2VmTeaEcqCxD6
https://goo.gl/maps/HkAT23JSUieCqyn88
https://goo.gl/maps/6AfwfMtinjMH9AaT7

The one-third-mile guide sign lists Eufala for US 69, but neither of the subsequent signs say which direction to go for Eufala.  Classy!

I cannot imagine what sort of failure in logic made Oklahoma think an exit tab was supposed to be blue.

I mean, hell, if they wanted to they could have gone down to Texas and used something like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3847381,-96.580853,3a,15y,192.36h,90.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbR8zjHPm1jnT4u9scxCawQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) as an example.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 27, 2020, 01:19:14 PM
I cannot imagine what sort of failure in logic made Oklahoma think an exit tab was supposed to be blue.

It's not just that it's blue.  On those exit gore signs, it's on the left, and it repeats the word "EXIT."  My brain lit up in flames, flipped 180 degrees, and exited from itself the first time I saw that.

You could have this:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50160733017_06d68a9a5d_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jqwSmr)

Quote from: rte66man on July 27, 2020, 04:56:33 PM
You could have this:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50160733017_06d68a9a5d_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jqwSmr)

Must be on a non-freeway route?

Quote from: US71 on July 27, 2020, 05:06:02 PM

Quote from: rte66man on July 27, 2020, 04:56:33 PM
You could have this:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50160733017_06d68a9a5d_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jqwSmr)

Must be on a non-freeway route?

Wonder what they're paying their sign shop crews?  Maybe not enough to get them to look at the order sheet carefully -- or too much, and they just don't bother to care any more.  Either way, the situation illustrated above is ludicrous! 

Quote from: US71 on July 27, 2020, 05:06:02 PM

Quote from: rte66man on July 27, 2020, 04:56:33 PM
You could have this:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50160733017_06d68a9a5d_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jqwSmr)

Must be on a non-freeway route?

No, that's I-35 north of Ardmore.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 27, 2020, 06:50:11 PM

Quote from: US71 on July 27, 2020, 05:06:02 PM

Quote from: rte66man on July 27, 2020, 04:56:33 PM
You could have this:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50160733017_06d68a9a5d_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jqwSmr)

Must be on a non-freeway route?

No, that's I-35 north of Ardmore.

There are so many things wrong here

Remember, this is the state that brought us the Craig County Frankensign.

Quote from: rte66man on July 27, 2020, 04:56:33 PM
You could have this:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50160733017_06d68a9a5d_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jqwSmr)

Holy crap, I didn't notice it until the second time!

The sad thing is, other than the exit tab, that sign is pretty nice for Oklahoma. Margins are adequate, interline spacing is more-or-less correct, text is centered properly, kerning is correct.

Sometime I should post a thread of "average" work by OK. Signs that commit errors that are not eye-bleach level but just...kind of crummy. There's a ton of signs that use the wrong type of arrow, for instance. Or where the centering or spacing is off by a foot or so. These sorts of signs make up the majority of what we have to look at here.

Didn't know ODOT was still using Clearview.  Just adding to the general weirdness of that particular sign!

Quote from: sparker on July 28, 2020, 02:16:59 AM
Didn't know ODOT was still using Clearview.  Just adding to the general weirdness of that particular sign!

That sign has been around since at least March 2014. It was replaced sometime between March 2012 & March 2014.

Quote from: okroads on July 28, 2020, 10:40:01 AM

Quote from: sparker on July 28, 2020, 02:16:59 AM
Didn't know ODOT was still using Clearview.  Just adding to the general weirdness of that particular sign!

That sign has been around since at least March 2014. It was replaced sometime between March 2012 & March 2014.

I didn't think it had been that long.

Quote from: US71 on July 28, 2020, 11:36:08 AM

Quote from: okroads on July 28, 2020, 10:40:01 AM

Quote from: sparker on July 28, 2020, 02:16:59 AM
Didn't know ODOT was still using Clearview.  Just adding to the general weirdness of that particular sign!

That sign has been around since at least March 2014. It was replaced sometime between March 2012 & March 2014.

I didn't think it had been that long.

Looks to be in pretty good condition for a sign in that part of the country -- considering the weather it endures -- that's been up for six years.  Signage "anomalies" aside, does ODOT actually have an active maintenance program for their signage (and if they do, could they please let Caltrans in on their "secret"?)?

Not as far as I can tell. My commute involves going through a patch of 80s/90s button copy, then an interchange with brand new signs from 2015 or so, an interchange with some Clearview from 2012, then retroreflective signs from the 2000s the rest of the way.

Usually we get new signs whenever interchange or other reconstruction work happens, or when one gets damaged by a vehicle strike. Everything stays mismatched in terms of style for a while, until ODOT lets a sign contract that does something like 50 miles worth of interstate in one fell swoop.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 28, 2020, 01:00:55 PM
Not as far as I can tell. My commute involves going through a patch of 80s/90s button copy, then an interchange with brand new signs from 2015 or so, an interchange with some Clearview from 2012, then retroreflective signs from the 2000s the rest of the way.

Usually we get new signs whenever interchange or other reconstruction work happens, or when one gets damaged by a vehicle strike. Everything stays mismatched in terms of style for a while, until ODOT lets a sign contract that does something like 50 miles worth of interstate in one fell swoop.

ODOT has upgraded most of the signs on US 69 south of I-40 (including Business OK 69 at McAlester). North of I-40 seems to be hit and miss, though, especially north of Muskogee

Quote from: US71 on July 28, 2020, 01:53:45 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 28, 2020, 01:00:55 PM
Not as far as I can tell. My commute involves going through a patch of 80s/90s button copy, then an interchange with brand new signs from 2015 or so, an interchange with some Clearview from 2012, then retroreflective signs from the 2000s the rest of the way.

Usually we get new signs whenever interchange or other reconstruction work happens, or when one gets damaged by a vehicle strike. Everything stays mismatched in terms of style for a while, until ODOT lets a sign contract that does something like 50 miles worth of interstate in one fell swoop.

ODOT has upgraded most of the signs on US 69 south of I-40 (including Business OK 69 at McAlester). North of I-40 seems to be hit and miss, though, especially north of Muskogee

That might be an indication that if ODOT elects, down the road a bit, to bite the bullet regarding local obstacles and commences planning for a continuous freeway along US 69 and/or 75 -- particularly if TX makes moves to drag I-45 up US 75 to the state line -- that such an effort will be limited to a facility south of I-40, particularly with the Muskogee backlash a couple of years back.  That would be about as much as the agency could handle in the near term; extending such a concept northward would need to wait for a more favorable atmosphere coincident with funding availability.  Getting both in the same timeframe might be a stretch; I wouldn't expect any similar improvement north of Checotah for at least another 25-30 years at the earliest.   

I don't think you can reasonably predict what ODOT will do based on any sort of past action. It's like watching a Roomba. While you can tell internally it has some sort of plan, and the job usually gets done eventually, the route it takes is hard to predict and makes no apparent sense to an untrained observer.

Quote from: US71 on July 28, 2020, 11:36:08 AM

Quote from: okroads on July 28, 2020, 10:40:01 AM

Quote from: sparker on July 28, 2020, 02:16:59 AM
Didn't know ODOT was still using Clearview.  Just adding to the general weirdness of that particular sign!

That sign has been around since at least March 2014. It was replaced sometime between March 2012 & March 2014.

I didn't think it had been that long.

I took the photo in 2016 so that fits.  Yes, it is still there as of 6 weeks ago.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 29, 2020, 01:57:10 PM
I don't think you can reasonably predict what ODOT will do based on any sort of past action. It's like watching a Roomba. While you can tell internally it has some sort of plan, and the job usually gets done eventually, the route it takes is hard to predict and makes no apparent sense to an untrained observer.

Politics is still king.  There is no one who will stand up for ODOT when they make what we believe to be the best decision even when politically unpopular. Hence the complete cave to Muskogee on the bypass.  You can't ram these decisions through without a threat to a large portion of your funding. We have a history of diverting dedicated road funds to non-road purposes. Many of the pressure groups have the stroke to make that happen. Not saying its right, it's just the way it has always been.

Quote from: rte66man on July 29, 2020, 07:20:57 PM
Politics is still king.  There is no one who will stand up for ODOT when they make what we believe to be the best decision even when politically unpopular. Hence the complete cave to Muskogee on the bypass.  You can't ram these decisions through without a threat to a large portion of your funding. We have a history of diverting dedicated road funds to non-road purposes. Many of the pressure groups have the stroke to make that happen. Not saying its right, it's just the way it has always been.

I know there are some threads I've skipped, so I'm definitely missing something.  But, Muskogee Bypass?  It's mostly there already.  The only part that isn't a freeway is OK 165 between US 69 and the OK 351/Muskogee Turnpike.  And frankly, that non-freeway portion of OK 165 looks a lot easier to upgrade than several other parts of US 69 in the state, since it has very few driveways directly connecting to it, a fair amount of frontage roads, and businesses set back a good distance.  Even if ODOT didn't want to go full-freeway with it, they could still upgrade it for better access management and signalization with Michigan Lefts and/or jughandles, since there still seems to be enough space to do that.  (I know I'm treading on Fictional Highways territory, but I wanted to step in and at least pose the question.)

ODOT wanted to build a purpose-built US-69 bypass around the west side of Muskogee, but all the NIMBYs came out because they were afraid their McDonaldses and such on current US-69 would go under.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 30, 2020, 12:02:14 PM
ODOT wanted to build a purpose-built US-69 bypass around the west side of Muskogee, but all the NIMBYs came out because they were afraid their McDonaldses and such on current US-69 would go under.

Muskogee isn't a wealthy town to begin with. The only thing they really have going for them is the "castle", and Jefferson Highway

Also that one song.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 30, 2020, 12:02:14 PM
ODOT wanted to build a purpose-built US-69 bypass around the west side of Muskogee, but all the NIMBYs came out because they were afraid their McDonaldses and such on current US-69 would go under.

Was under belief that that bypass was set in stone.  So kibosh on it?   Enough room to upgrade current alignment?  Not an expert on the corridor, been on it perhaps twice, driving across country. Most I-45 backers seem to have been in support of an upgraded route all the way north to Big Cabin.  Any one ever support a US - 75 routing direct to Tulsa?   Am guessing more trucks stay on the US - 69 corridor to bypass it.   

Yeah, I think it's been cancelled.

I don't think there's been much of a call to use a US-75-based route, since 75 hasn't been upgraded much south of I-40. Definitely a decent chunk of two-lane there.

Okay.  Indian Nation Tpke.  A two lane road?   

US-75 isn't on the Indian Nation Turnpike; it has its own independent routing to the west between Atoka and Henryetta.

The Indian Nation Turnpike was built to 1950s OTA specs, which are great for a good laugh (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0220826,-95.8769977,3a,75y,137h,87.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_ZoUfImOrkwf37bTUAFm1g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_ZoUfImOrkwf37bTUAFm1g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D245.94702%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) but don't come close to meeting Interstate specs. So there'd be a decent amount of money that would have to be invested to get an I-45 designation there. And then you'd have to either get the tolls pulled off of it (hard sell, since that's the only segment of the INT that actually makes any appreciable amount of money) or find a way around FHWA's reluctance to designate toll roads as Interstates.

That would get I-45 to I-40. Getting it up to Tulsa would require bypasses of Henryetta and Okmulgee, where you'd presumably run into the same problem that you had in Muskogee.

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 04, 2020, 12:45:14 PM
US-75 isn't on the Indian Nation Turnpike; it has its own independent routing to the west between Atoka and Henryetta.

The Indian Nation Turnpike was built to 1950s OTA specs, which are great for a good laugh (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0220826,-95.8769977,3a,75y,137h,87.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_ZoUfImOrkwf37bTUAFm1g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_ZoUfImOrkwf37bTUAFm1g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D245.94702%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) but don't come close to meeting Interstate specs. So there'd be a decent amount of money that would have to be invested to get an I-45 designation there. And then you'd have to either get the tolls pulled off of it (hard sell, since that's the only segment of the INT that actually makes any appreciable amount of money) or find a way around FHWA's reluctance to designate toll roads as Interstates.

That would get I-45 to I-40. Getting it up to Tulsa would require bypasses of Henryetta and Okmulgee, where you'd presumably run into the same problem that you had in Muskogee.

Great pic, it appears very similar to many of New Mexico's original four lane jobs.  Mainly non-Interstate.  US 70, US 285, early I-25 sections, etc.  Have to wonder if someone from Pennsylvania/New Jersey moved there and were responsible for the design.   Narrow median, doesn't even have a cable or Jersey barrier.   Guessing low traffic counts, and little to no long haul trucking the original concrete is still uncovered.  Thanks for the insight have always found Oklahoma's highways interesting while passing through. 

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 04, 2020, 12:45:14 PM
US-75 isn't on the Indian Nation Turnpike; it has its own independent routing to the west between Atoka and Henryetta.

The Indian Nation Turnpike was built to 1950s OTA specs, which are great for a good laugh (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0220826,-95.8769977,3a,75y,137h,87.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_ZoUfImOrkwf37bTUAFm1g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_ZoUfImOrkwf37bTUAFm1g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D245.94702%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) but don't come close to meeting Interstate specs. So there'd be a decent amount of money that would have to be invested to get an I-45 designation there. And then you'd have to either get the tolls pulled off of it (hard sell, since that's the only segment of the INT that actually makes any appreciable amount of money) or find a way around FHWA's reluctance to designate toll roads as Interstates.

That would get I-45 to I-40. Getting it up to Tulsa would require bypasses of Henryetta and Okmulgee, where you'd presumably run into the same problem that you had in Muskogee.

Are there even plans to upgrade US 69 to a freeway between Texas and then Indian Nations Turnpike?  That alone is a far bigger challenge than upgrading the Indian Nations Turnpike, since you have to find a way to get a freeway through or around Atoka somehow.  Swapping out the Indian Nation Turnpike's grass median for a Jersey Barrier would be a piece of cake.

[Fictional Highways]I had another idea for a northward extension of I-45 from Dallas, which would be to route it east on I-30 to TX 24 to WB TX 286 to EB US 82 to NB US 271 to the Indian Nations Turnpike, which it would follow to I-40.  That whole route is mostly four-lanes-divided already.  I wouldn't be surprised if someone else has already thought of the same idea, and I missed that page of whatever thread it's on.  Texas might not go for it for the sole reason that they've already invested so much in US 75, however.[/Fictional Highways]

Quote from: DJStephens on August 04, 2020, 01:02:55 PM
Great pic, it appears very similar to many of New Mexico's original four lane jobs.  Mainly non-Interstate.  US 70, US 285, early I-25 sections, etc.  Have to wonder if someone from Pennsylvania/New Jersey moved there and were responsible for the design.   Narrow median, doesn't even have a cable or Jersey barrier.   Guessing low traffic counts, and little to no long haul trucking the original concrete is still uncovered.  Thanks for the insight have always found Oklahoma's highways interesting while passing through. 

You're welcome. The thing to keep in mind when looking at the Oklahoma turnpike system is that the turnpikes are all "cross-pledged" against each other. That means that all toll money goes to the same pot that OTA can use toward maintenance or construction bonds for any toll road it pleases. Since the Turner and Will Rogers bring in far more money than it costs to maintain them, OTA has been called in to build turnpikes where traffic counts don't necessarily justify it, either as a rural-access initiative (like the Appalachian corridors) or as a safety improvement (the Cherokee was built to replace a section of old SH-33 that ODOT couldn't afford to upgrade).

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 04, 2020, 01:10:29 PM
Are there even plans to upgrade US 69 to a freeway between Texas and then Indian Nations Turnpike?  That alone is a far bigger challenge than upgrading the Indian Nations Turnpike, since you have to find a way to get a freeway through or around Atoka somehow.  Swapping out the Indian Nation Turnpike's grass median for a Jersey Barrier would be a piece of cake.

I don't believe there's any hard plans to do so at the moment, no, other than a sense of inevitability that it must happen someday. Believe it or not, the real barrier to progress in this stretch is Stringtown, which holds a weird amount of sway over the process for such a little town.

I think the upgrades needed would be a tad more expensive than just plopping down a Jersey barrier; you would need to move the lanes outward a bit to accommodate a left shoulder of requisite width. Further north, OTA made an attempt at fixing it (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3210458,-95.9567073,3a,42.3y,138.66h,78.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siobQ_29h_MnGnVUpOFGYEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Emphasis on attempt.

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 04, 2020, 01:10:29 PM
[Fictional Highways]I had another idea for a northward extension of I-45 from Dallas, which would be to route it east on I-30 to TX 24 to WB TX 286 to EB US 82 to NB US 271 to the Indian Nations Turnpike, which it would follow to I-40.  That whole route is mostly four-lanes-divided already.  I wouldn't be surprised if someone else has already thought of the same idea, and I missed that page of whatever thread it's on.  Texas might not go for it for the sole reason that they've already invested so much in US 75, however.[/Fictional Highways]

If you build it, they won't come–AADT is only 1,831 between Hugo and Antlers. For reference, that's less than I-180 in Illinois.

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 04, 2020, 01:22:00 PM
If you build it, they won't come–AADT is only 1,831 between Hugo and Antlers.

but fritz

Quote from: kphoger on August 04, 2020, 01:24:08 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 04, 2020, 01:22:00 PM
If you build it, they won't come–AADT is only 1,831 between Hugo and Antlers.

but fritz

Oh, well, never mind then.

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 04, 2020, 01:22:00 PM

Quote from: DJStephens on August 04, 2020, 01:02:55 PM
Great pic, it appears very similar to many of New Mexico's original four lane jobs.  Mainly non-Interstate.  US 70, US 285, early I-25 sections, etc.  Have to wonder if someone from Pennsylvania/New Jersey moved there and were responsible for the design.   Narrow median, doesn't even have a cable or Jersey barrier.   Guessing low traffic counts, and little to no long haul trucking the original concrete is still uncovered.  Thanks for the insight have always found Oklahoma's highways interesting while passing through. 

You're welcome. The thing to keep in mind when looking at the Oklahoma turnpike system is that the turnpikes are all "cross-pledged" against each other. That means that all toll money goes to the same pot that OTA can use toward maintenance or construction bonds for any toll road it pleases. Since the Turner and Will Rogers bring in far more money than it costs to maintain them, OTA has been called in to build turnpikes where traffic counts don't necessarily justify it, either as a rural-access initiative (like the Appalachian corridors) or as a safety improvement (the Cherokee was built to replace a section of old SH-33 that ODOT couldn't afford to upgrade).

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 04, 2020, 01:10:29 PM
Are there even plans to upgrade US 69 to a freeway between Texas and then Indian Nations Turnpike?  That alone is a far bigger challenge than upgrading the Indian Nations Turnpike, since you have to find a way to get a freeway through or around Atoka somehow.  Swapping out the Indian Nation Turnpike's grass median for a Jersey Barrier would be a piece of cake.

I don't believe there's any hard plans to do so at the moment, no, other than a sense of inevitability that it must happen someday. Believe it or not, the real barrier to progress in this stretch is Stringtown, which holds a weird amount of sway over the process for such a little town.

I think the upgrades needed would be a tad more expensive than just plopping down a Jersey barrier; you would need to move the lanes outward a bit to accommodate a left shoulder of requisite width. Further north, OTA made an attempt at fixing it (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3210458,-95.9567073,3a,42.3y,138.66h,78.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siobQ_29h_MnGnVUpOFGYEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Emphasis on attempt.

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 04, 2020, 01:10:29 PM
[Fictional Highways]I had another idea for a northward extension of I-45 from Dallas, which would be to route it east on I-30 to TX 24 to WB TX 286 to EB US 82 to NB US 271 to the Indian Nations Turnpike, which it would follow to I-40.  That whole route is mostly four-lanes-divided already.  I wouldn't be surprised if someone else has already thought of the same idea, and I missed that page of whatever thread it's on.  Texas might not go for it for the sole reason that they've already invested so much in US 75, however.[/Fictional Highways]

If you build it, they won't come–AADT is only 1,831 between Hugo and Antlers. For reference, that's less than I-180 in Illinois.

I have regularly used the INT as part of my route to visit my relatives in the Broken Bow area; much of the traffic -- including virtually all truck traffic -- exits at the US 69 interchange.  From there south there is scant traffic, with a good portion of what there actually is exiting at OK 3 at Antlers (including myself, of course).  So that AADT is probably spot on, and maybe 20-25% higher north of Antlers.  That's what happens with a road clearly intended to politically placate a sparsely populated portion of the state.  I'd speculate on what actions might boost the traffic count (TX extension to an actual traffic generator!?) -- but that's a subject for Fictional discussion.

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 04, 2020, 12:45:14 PM
US-75 isn't on the Indian Nation Turnpike; it has its own independent routing to the west between Atoka and Henryetta.

The Indian Nation Turnpike was built to 1950s OTA specs, which are great for a good laugh (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0220826,-95.8769977,3a,75y,137h,87.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_ZoUfImOrkwf37bTUAFm1g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_ZoUfImOrkwf37bTUAFm1g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D245.94702%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) but don't come close to meeting Interstate specs. So there'd be a decent amount of money that would have to be invested to get an I-45 designation there. And then you'd have to either get the tolls pulled off of it (hard sell, since that's the only segment of the INT that actually makes any appreciable amount of money) or find a way around FHWA's reluctance to designate toll roads as Interstates.

That would get I-45 to I-40. Getting it up to Tulsa would require bypasses of Henryetta and Okmulgee, where you'd presumably run into the same problem that you had in Muskogee.

As to the road: You put a jersey barrier down the median and put a seal coat of asphalt down and it would probably meet muster.  BTW, if I am not mistaken, this stretch used to have asphalt over the top. I think this was just milled down to the original concrete.  The tolls are entirely a different issue. 

I think the more useful route is US-69 to Indian Nation Turnpike. From the end of INT to Tulsa follow US 62-75 to Tulsa, then follow US-169 north to US-59 and follow US-59 to I-70 at Lawrence or  keep following US-169 to I-35 in Olathe. The bottom line is there are a lot of freeway and rural divided highway along this route in Kansas.

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 04, 2020, 12:45:14 PM
US-75 isn't on the Indian Nation Turnpike; it has its own independent routing to the west between Atoka and Henryetta.

The Indian Nation Turnpike was built to 1950s OTA specs, which are great for a good laugh (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0220826,-95.8769977,3a,75y,137h,87.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_ZoUfImOrkwf37bTUAFm1g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_ZoUfImOrkwf37bTUAFm1g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D245.94702%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) but don't come close to meeting Interstate specs. So there'd be a decent amount of money that would have to be invested to get an I-45 designation there. And then you'd have to either get the tolls pulled off of it (hard sell, since that's the only segment of the INT that actually makes any appreciable amount of money) or find a way around FHWA's reluctance to designate toll roads as Interstates.

That would get I-45 to I-40. Getting it up to Tulsa would require bypasses of Henryetta and Okmulgee, where you'd presumably run into the same problem that you had in Muskogee.

Agree about Okmulgee but it wouldn't be that hard to run it through Henryetta just where it is.  Parclo at Main St, close off Holly Rd and Industrial Rd with frontage road access (plenty of room for that), interchange near Bollinger with frontage road access to the sawmill, and a full interchange at US266 with frontage roads allowing other crossovers to be closed. That will get you almost to Schulter.

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

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 04, 2020, 12:45:14 PM
US-75 isn't on the Indian Nation Turnpike; it has its own independent routing to the west between Atoka and Henryetta.

The Indian Nation Turnpike was built to 1950s OTA specs, which are great for a good laugh (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0220826,-95.8769977,3a,75y,137h,87.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_ZoUfImOrkwf37bTUAFm1g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_ZoUfImOrkwf37bTUAFm1g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D245.94702%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) but don't come close to meeting Interstate specs. So there'd be a decent amount of money that would have to be invested to get an I-45 designation there. And then you'd have to either get the tolls pulled off of it (hard sell, since that's the only segment of the INT that actually makes any appreciable amount of money) or find a way around FHWA's reluctance to designate toll roads as Interstates.

That would get I-45 to I-40. Getting it up to Tulsa would require bypasses of Henryetta and Okmulgee, where you'd presumably run into the same problem that you had in Muskogee.

Quote from: bwana39 on August 04, 2020, 06:38:59 PMAs to the road: You put a jersey barrier down the median and put a seal coat of asphalt down and it would probably meet muster.  BTW, if I am not mistaken, this stretch used to have asphalt over the top. I think this was just milled down to the original concrete.  The tolls are entirely a different issue. 

I think the more useful route is US-69 to Indian Nation Turnpike. From the end of INT to Tulsa follow US 62-75 to Tulsa, then follow US-169 north to US-59 and follow US-59 to I-70 at Lawrence or  keep following US-169 to I-35 in Olathe. The bottom line is there are a lot of freeway and rural divided highway along this route in Kansas.

Install a glare screen??

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 04, 2020, 12:45:14 PM
US-75 isn't on the Indian Nation Turnpike; it has its own independent routing to the west between Atoka and Henryetta.

The Indian Nation Turnpike was built to 1950s OTA specs, which are great for a good laugh (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0220826,-95.8769977,3a,75y,137h,87.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_ZoUfImOrkwf37bTUAFm1g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_ZoUfImOrkwf37bTUAFm1g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D245.94702%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) but don't come close to meeting Interstate specs. So there'd be a decent amount of money that would have to be invested to get an I-45 designation there. And then you'd have to either get the tolls pulled off of it (hard sell, since that's the only segment of the INT that actually makes any appreciable amount of money) or find a way around FHWA's reluctance to designate toll roads as Interstates.

That would get I-45 to I-40. Getting it up to Tulsa would require bypasses of Henryetta and Okmulgee, where you'd presumably run into the same problem that you had in Muskogee.

Don't think getting I-45 to I-40 would be a problem along US 69, since the alignment north of McAlester is already a freeway (albeit one that would require some spot fixes to meet standards); rerouting it up the INT north of the US 69 interchange wouldn't be necessary unless it was desired to head directly to Tulsa.  More of a problem: overcoming bypass objections rife with political implications from Stringtown and Atoka -- but those would exist regardless of where the northern terminus would be located.   

Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2020, 05:04:54 AM
More of a problem: overcoming bypass objections rife with political implications from Stringtown and Atoka -- but those would exist regardless of where the northern terminus would be located.   

I kind of hate this, but unless there's an Oklahoma state law against this, they could probably use eminent domain to acquire plots of land right next to the proposed freeway and give them to Love's and Pilot for new, more convenient locations.  It's not my favorite Supreme Court decision, and I'm not a big fan of the American Planning Association for supporting it, but Kelo vs. New London upheld the right to use eminent domain for corporate welfare--I mean--"economic development."  Of course, the precedent was already set by Berman vs. Parker in 1954.

Urban planning school taught me next to jack that I find useful in terms of what I'm really interested in, but at least there's a bit of case law that I know by heart without being a lawyer.

When it comes to business locations, I think there's a significant difference between catering to car traffic and catering to truck traffic.  If you're driving a big-rig, you're probably going to want to get off the freeway as little as possible, which is why I hated having assigned fuel stops that strongly incentivized me by company policy to use US 69 instead of I-35 to get from Dallas to Topeka or Kansas City.  But if you're in a car, it's much easier to take a business loop to get to McDonald's, the gas station, Walmart, Super 8, or whatever.

Quote from: DJStephens on August 04, 2020, 12:23:22 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 30, 2020, 12:02:14 PM
ODOT wanted to build a purpose-built US-69 bypass around the west side of Muskogee, but all the NIMBYs came out because they were afraid their McDonaldses and such on current US-69 would go under.

Was under belief that that bypass was set in stone.  So kibosh on it?   Enough room to upgrade current alignment?  Not an expert on the corridor, been on it perhaps twice, driving across country. Most I-45 backers seem to have been in support of an upgraded route all the way north to Big Cabin.  Any one ever support a US - 75 routing direct to Tulsa?   Am guessing more trucks stay on the US - 69 corridor to bypass it.   

The routing would have to go from Dallas to Big Cabin as I-44 is the end point of a lot of the traffic. When I drove it I made fairly good time coming up from Texas until I got to Muskogee. The Muskogee to Big Cabin portion is most in need of an upgrade because of the frequent stop lights and dinosaur routing right through towns instead of bypass. All those "speed zone ahead" 45 then 35 then 30 etc where you have to watch for Barney Fife running a highway man revenue scam take all the momentum out of your journey.

Quote from: bwana39 on August 04, 2020, 06:38:59 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 04, 2020, 12:45:14 PM
US-75 isn't on the Indian Nation Turnpike; it has its own independent routing to the west between Atoka and Henryetta.

The Indian Nation Turnpike was built to 1950s OTA specs, which are great for a good laugh (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0220826,-95.8769977,3a,75y,137h,87.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_ZoUfImOrkwf37bTUAFm1g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_ZoUfImOrkwf37bTUAFm1g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D245.94702%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) but don't come close to meeting Interstate specs. So there'd be a decent amount of money that would have to be invested to get an I-45 designation there. And then you'd have to either get the tolls pulled off of it (hard sell, since that's the only segment of the INT that actually makes any appreciable amount of money) or find a way around FHWA's reluctance to designate toll roads as Interstates.

That would get I-45 to I-40. Getting it up to Tulsa would require bypasses of Henryetta and Okmulgee, where you'd presumably run into the same problem that you had in Muskogee.

As to the road: You put a jersey barrier down the median and put a seal coat of asphalt down and it would probably meet muster. 

From the looks of it, once you put the Jersey barrier down, you still have too little clearance between it and the left lane. You'd have to extend the outer edge of the roadbed a few feet so you can shift the lanes outward.

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 05, 2020, 12:45:17 PM
From the looks of it, once you put the Jersey barrier down, you still have too little clearance between it and the left lane. You'd have to extend the outer edge of the roadbed a few feet so you can shift the lanes outward.

Ah, the great American Interstate!  They just don't make 'em like they used to!  https://goo.gl/maps/L4jd47cHkALWc2wC7

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 04, 2020, 01:26:47 PM

Quote from: kphoger on August 04, 2020, 01:24:08 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 04, 2020, 01:22:00 PM
If you build it, they won't come–AADT is only 1,831 between Hugo and Antlers.

but fritz

Oh, well, never mind then.

Hugo and Antlers. The Hugo to Antlers is part of the miss DFW and go from I-40 to the Texas Gulf Coast. Even the traffic that adopted this route skip the first part of the turnpike. There is a MOSTLY 4 lane route using US69 from Beaumont to Greenville (TX) Then a short juke on I-30 to SH24. 24 to Paris then 271 to Hugo. Then there is the rub.  271 runs virtually alongside the Turnpike to Antlers and is rural full speed highway. People skip that leg of the turnpike because it gains very little for the expense. 

Quote from: bwana39 on August 05, 2020, 06:29:54 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 04, 2020, 01:26:47 PM

Quote from: kphoger on August 04, 2020, 01:24:08 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 04, 2020, 01:22:00 PM
If you build it, they won't come–AADT is only 1,831 between Hugo and Antlers.

but fritz

Oh, well, never mind then.

Hugo and Antlers. The Hugo to Antlers is part of the miss DFW and go from I-40 to the Texas Gulf Coast. Even the traffic that adopted this route skip the first part of the turnpike. There is a MOSTLY 4 lane route using US69 from Beaumont to Greenville (TX) Then a short juke on I-30 to SH24. 24 to Paris then 271 to Hugo. Then there is the rub.  271 runs virtually alongside the Turnpike to Antlers and is rural full speed highway. People skip that leg of the turnpike because it gains very little for the expense. 

Still have to go through Antlers.  I'd rather pay the extra 50 cents to avoid that.

Quote from: rte66man on August 05, 2020, 08:09:35 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on August 05, 2020, 06:29:54 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 04, 2020, 01:26:47 PM

Quote from: kphoger on August 04, 2020, 01:24:08 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 04, 2020, 01:22:00 PM
If you build it, they won't come–AADT is only 1,831 between Hugo and Antlers.

but fritz

Oh, well, never mind then.

Hugo and Antlers. The Hugo to Antlers is part of the miss DFW and go from I-40 to the Texas Gulf Coast. Even the traffic that adopted this route skip the first part of the turnpike. There is a MOSTLY 4 lane route using US69 from Beaumont to Greenville (TX) Then a short juke on I-30 to SH24. 24 to Paris then 271 to Hugo. Then there is the rub.  271 runs virtually alongside the Turnpike to Antlers and is rural full speed highway. People skip that leg of the turnpike because it gains very little for the expense. 

Still have to go through Antlers.  I'd rather pay the extra 50 cents to avoid that.

Antlers to Hugo is normally not very busy. Or do you mean the town of Antlers? That can be busy at times.

There are better ways to avoid DFW. I-35 to Gainesville, US 82 to Bells, then US 69 south from there. No tolls.

Or from Greenville you can leave US 69 and take SH 34 to Ennis, and pick up I-45.

Quote from: Road Hog on August 05, 2020, 08:38:11 PM
There are better ways to avoid DFW. I-35 to Gainesville, US 82 to Bells, then US 69 south from there. No tolls.

Or from Greenville you can leave US 69 and take SH 34 to Ennis, and pick up I-45.

Look, there are countless ways to avoid DFW if through-town slogs and twinned roadways strewn with commercial development are something you'd consider adequate.   Of course, the original 3di "semi-beltways" have long been subsumed by urban spread, with nothing -- or nothing currently being considered -- to actually function as "official" bypasses.  By this time, most of us have proffered one or another conceptual solution to this problem, with the chances of any of them being adopted slim and none.  But since TX interests seem to be able to pull corridors out of their hats (although some may cite other physical locations for this activity) on a regular basis, there's always that outside chance one of them will actually function as an effective bypass.  Now -- whether it's N-S or E-W -- or a blend of the two -- remains to be seen when and if it occurs.  The problem with the N-S concepts is that they invariably bring OK -- where the best-conceived plans often go to die -- into the mix. 

But we're discussing OK US 69 improvements here -- which inexorably lead directly down US 75 into downtown Dallas!  If TX' improvements to that corridor result in a move to deploy I-45 over it, any talk of a bypass -- unless initiated within DFW regional circles -- goes right out the door; such a corridor would be locally "sold" as an upgraded designation to a corridor that brings people (read customers) right into the heart of Dallas (i.e., "swamp" the I-345 teardown crowd with potential commercial urban benefits).       

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 05, 2020, 01:40:47 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 05, 2020, 12:45:17 PM
From the looks of it, once you put the Jersey barrier down, you still have too little clearance between it and the left lane. You'd have to extend the outer edge of the roadbed a few feet so you can shift the lanes outward.

Ah, the great American Interstate!  They just don't make 'em like they used to!  https://goo.gl/maps/L4jd47cHkALWc2wC7

I'd take that type of engineering through Muskogee, Pryor, Atoka, etc rather than having to go 30 with all those stop lights and local PD trying to raise revenue from people going 32 in a 30.

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 05, 2020, 07:30:48 AM
I kind of hate this, but unless there's an Oklahoma state law against this, they could probably use eminent domain to acquire plots of land right next to the proposed freeway and give them to Love's and Pilot for new, more convenient locations.

Are they even building new Pilots anywhere? I love the coffee machines they have that grind a fresh cup and brew it to order and am always on the lookout and never seem to notice any new ones popping up? Loves on the other hand seems to be on a building spree, don't know if they are loaded with profits? Or leveraged by Wall Street with loans for such expansion? Yet Loves does seem to consistently have very clean bathrooms. Much better than being forced to stop at some 60 year old gas station with a single unisex bathroom you have to wait outside for then once you get in it looks like that bathroom in the 90s movie "Trainspotting."

Quote from: captkirk_4 on August 06, 2020, 08:52:47 AM

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 05, 2020, 01:40:47 PM
Ah, the great American Interstate!  They just don't make 'em like they used to!  https://goo.gl/maps/L4jd47cHkALWc2wC7

I'd take that type of engineering through Muskogee, Pryor, Atoka, etc rather than having to go 30 with all those stop lights and local PD trying to raise revenue from people going 32 in a 30.

I pretty much agree.  With enough investment in grade separation, you could turn all those stretches into Jersey Freeways or quasi-expressways, maybe with a few two-phase traffic signals where an interchange isn't feasible but access is warranted, move the speed limit up to 50 MPH, and not have to tear down a single building.  NJDOT might have already done that by now.  But I seldom see such a level of imagination from ODOT or even neighboring KDOT.  To a large extent, they seem stuck in a mindset of "build a freeway or do next to nothing."

U.S. 69 in Oklahoma is part of The Unfinished Corridor, which should eventually be designated as simply Interstate 45. I am not in favor of destroying the Interstate 345 segment, and also I am not in favor of alternative routing:

The Interstate 45 to U.S. 271 and Indian Nation Turnpike.

The Indian Nation Turnpike south of McAlester. ... which would also have the obstacles Tushka, Atoka, and Stringtown, also south of McAlester.

U.S. 75 north of Atoka, which is an undeveloped corridor, not even an expressway.

If the other routes such as Indian Nation Turnpike and U.S. 75 get an Interstate designation, it is better for them to have their own Interstate designations, not Interstate 45. ... even if it seems very likely that those corridors will accomplish Interstate designation much earlier.

...

I think that the towns should have the road bypasses, but also I agree that the rail should have double tracks and grade separations.

The D.C.T.A. has the A-Train which uses existing freight rail, the last time I checked, was only single tracked.

There are towns chopped in half by rail roads such as Pauls Valley and Marietta.

In the Valley View - Sanger area, they are examples of towns also chopped in half.

There was a study about people stuck in traffic be cause of stopped trains, and very little space between the rail road and the frontage road. They want to build bridges so they don't have to:

A. wait for the train to move or

B. go through Denton.

They were also talking about one of the alternatives is realigning Interstate 35.

When I find the study, I will post in Mid - South.

^

(1) I am very confused.

(2) I should have a million dollars, and I am not in favor of bugs crawling into my bedroom.

(3) Who's considering re-aligning I-35 to where?

(4) We're well into Fictional Highways territory at this point, with all these hypothetical I-45 alignments.  Maybe it's my fault for starting in with the buildable but undesirable alternate I-45 routing.  My bad.  New thread, anyone?

(5) These paragraphs are very short.

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 08, 2020, 10:44:35 PM
^

(1) I am very confused.

(2) I should have a million dollars, and I am not in favor of bugs crawling into my bedroom.

(3) Who's considering re-aligning I-35 to where?

(4) We're well into Fictional Highways territory at this point, with all these hypothetical I-45 alignments.  Maybe it's my fault for starting in with the buildable but undesirable alternate I-45 routing.  My bad.  New thread, anyone?

(5) These paragraphs are very short.

1.

I quoted the entire topic from memory. My replies are condensed in to my one recent post, ... which are replying to your questions

that you forgot all about.

... and that also includes your Fictional suggestion, of which I do not agree with.

and the rest of my reply is about Rail backing up road traffic on page 11. It is also visible in the Topic Summary when you post. (!)

More information posted on Mid - South.

That is the second time I typed it.

I am not going to explain any further with this reply, but basically this is the second time I encountered a poster debated himself.

Quote from: In_Correct on August 09, 2020, 12:20:29 AM
1.

I quoted the entire topic from memory. My replies are condensed in to my one recent post, ... which are replying to your questions

that you forgot all about.

It's a twelve-page thread.

Quote
... and that also includes your Fictional suggestion, of which I do not agree with.

Okay.

Quote
and the rest of my reply is about Rail backing up road traffic on page 11. It is also visible in the Topic Summary when you post. (!)

More information posted on Mid - South.

That is the second time I typed it.

Cool.  I saw it, except for the links that aren't playing nice with my browser, which I might try to look at later.

Quote
I am not going to explain any further with this reply, but basically this is the second time I encountered a poster debated himself.

I debate myself all the time.  No one should be surprised.

Rail grade separation is currently happening just north of the Red River in Calera.

https://www.odot.org/OK-GOV-DOCS/PROGRAMS-AND-PROJECTS/GRANTS/FASTLANE-US69/MAPS-GRAPHICS/US%206975%20PROJECT%20LOCATION%20MAP.pdf
(https://www.odot.org/OK-GOV-DOCS/PROGRAMS-AND-PROJECTS/GRANTS/FASTLANE-US69/MAPS-GRAPHICS/US%206975%20PROJECT%20LOCATION%20MAP.pdf)

Quote from: splashflash on August 09, 2020, 09:22:11 PM

Rail grade separation is currently happening just north of the Red River in Caldera.

https://www.odot.org/OK-GOV-DOCS/PROGRAMS-AND-PROJECTS/GRANTS/FASTLANE-US69/MAPS-GRAPHICS/US%206975%20PROJECT%20LOCATION%20MAP.pdf
(https://www.odot.org/OK-GOV-DOCS/PROGRAMS-AND-PROJECTS/GRANTS/FASTLANE-US69/MAPS-GRAPHICS/US%206975%20PROJECT%20LOCATION%20MAP.pdf)

Doesn't look like the main US 69/75 corridor will cross the UP tracks at any point covered by the map; any RR grade separations will be on intersecting streets or roads.  Interestingly, the map also indicates that Calera has annexed the area adjacent to the highway down to a point where it meets northerly similar annexation by the town of Colbert; I know there's existing businesses along the frontage roads there; looks like those various cities have decided to include them -- and future facilities -- in their taxable rolls.   

Quote from: sparker on August 10, 2020, 04:14:34 AM

Quote from: splashflash on August 09, 2020, 09:22:11 PM

Rail grade separation is currently happening just north of the Red River in Caldera.

https://www.odot.org/OK-GOV-DOCS/PROGRAMS-AND-PROJECTS/GRANTS/FASTLANE-US69/MAPS-GRAPHICS/US%206975%20PROJECT%20LOCATION%20MAP.pdf
(https://www.odot.org/OK-GOV-DOCS/PROGRAMS-AND-PROJECTS/GRANTS/FASTLANE-US69/MAPS-GRAPHICS/US%206975%20PROJECT%20LOCATION%20MAP.pdf)

Doesn't look like the main US 69/75 corridor will cross the UP tracks at any point covered by the map; any RR grade separations will be on intersecting streets or roads.  Interestingly, the map also indicates that Calera has annexed the area adjacent to the highway down to a point where it meets northerly similar annexation by the town of Colbert; I know there's existing businesses along the frontage roads there; looks like those various cities have decided to include them -- and future facilities -- in their taxable rolls.   

From the project summary: The project proposes a local road/railroad grade separation between McKennon Avenue and South McKinley Avenue.

This project eliminates the negative effects of the existing UP rail infrastructure that creates local traffic
queues through the US 69/75 and Main Street intersection and is a physical barrier within the Town of
Calera dividing the community and restricting timely access to employment, impeding emergency vehicles
and public services, and residents' access to community services and facilities. The proposed railroad
grade separation and the three proposed US 69/75 grade separations will mitigate the negative effects of
this community barrier and significantly improve safety and freight movement.
...
The proposed project will also improve the Main Street/Union Pacific Railroad crossing by widening Main
Street from two to four lanes near the crossing to increase traffic storage. Crossing arms and synchronized
traffic signals will be added for enhanced safety. A new grade-separated railway crossing a few blocks
south of Main Street (south of existing McKennon Avenue) is also proposed. This new railway crossing,
consisting of a new bridge to carry the city street over the railroad, will allow local traffic to move freely
between east and west Calera without conflicts from rail traffic. The new grade separation will also improve
emergency vehicle access and will improve traffic mobility on US 69/75 as local traffic congestion
decreases.

The four mile arterial section of US69/75 perhaps may be in line for upgrades in 10 years?

Quote from: splashflash on August 10, 2020, 11:01:15 AM

Quote from: sparker on August 10, 2020, 04:14:34 AM

Quote from: splashflash on August 09, 2020, 09:22:11 PM

The four mile arterial section of US69/75 perhaps may be in line for upgrades in 10 years?

From the ODOT application:

ODOT considered submitting the entire eight-mile section of US 69/75 that is not access controlled for
funding under the FASTLANE program, but determined that the four-mile segment described in this
application is most critical to freight and traffic flow on US 69/75 and to the economy and safety of the
southeast Oklahoma region. The improvements to this four-mile segment of the corridor represent the
smallest section of independent utility within the eight miles that lack access control. Improvements to the
remaining four mile section of this corridor that is not access controlled will be less costly to address and
ODOT will continue to develop improvements in this segment of the corridor as funds are available.

Quote from: splashflash on August 10, 2020, 02:00:43 PM
From the ODOT application:

ODOT considered submitting the entire eight-mile section of US 69/75 that is not access controlled for
funding under the FASTLANE program, but determined that the four-mile segment described in this
application is most critical to freight and traffic flow on US 69/75 and to the economy and safety of the
southeast Oklahoma region. The improvements to this four-mile segment of the corridor represent the
smallest section of independent utility within the eight miles that lack access control. Improvements to the
remaining four mile section of this corridor that is not access controlled will be less costly to address and
ODOT will continue to develop improvements in this segment of the corridor as funds are available.

In short, ODOT didn't have the money to complete the entire project at once, so they split it into a more difficult and less difficult half; and they're choosing to do the more difficult/in-town section initially.  Actually, considering the fiscal circumstances that's something of an admirable plan of attack; let the easier-to-deploy more rural segment be the one subject to inflationary pressure.

I would suspect that if TX extended I-45 up US 75 to the state line in a unilateral move, ODOT would at least arrange improvement of their portion of the corridor north to US 70 near Durant -- as the most obvious traffic generator -- so as to enhance the commercial prospects of the immediate area; whether they'd participate in actual I-45 designation/signage up to that point remains TBD. 

Quote from: sparker on August 11, 2020, 02:36:34 AM
In short, ODOT didn't have the money to complete the entire project at once, so they split it into a more difficult and less difficult half; and they're choosing to do the more difficult/in-town section initially.  Actually, considering the fiscal circumstances that's something of an admirable plan of attack; let the easier-to-deploy more rural segment be the one subject to inflationary pressure.

I would suspect that if TX extended I-45 up US 75 to the state line in a unilateral move, ODOT would at least arrange improvement of their portion of the corridor north to US 70 near Durant -- as the most obvious traffic generator -- so as to enhance the commercial prospects of the immediate area; whether they'd participate in actual I-45 designation/signage up to that point remains TBD. 

That's a good point.  It could end up looking like I-72 in Missouri, where they at least got it over the state line, but then let it end there for a long time, with a long-distance extension coming who knows when.

Quote from: sparker on August 10, 2020, 04:14:34 AM

Quote from: splashflash on August 09, 2020, 09:22:11 PM

Rail grade separation is currently happening just north of the Red River in Caldera.

https://www.odot.org/OK-GOV-DOCS/PROGRAMS-AND-PROJECTS/GRANTS/FASTLANE-US69/MAPS-GRAPHICS/US%206975%20PROJECT%20LOCATION%20MAP.pdf
(https://www.odot.org/OK-GOV-DOCS/PROGRAMS-AND-PROJECTS/GRANTS/FASTLANE-US69/MAPS-GRAPHICS/US%206975%20PROJECT%20LOCATION%20MAP.pdf)

Doesn't look like the main US 69/75 corridor will cross the UP tracks at any point covered by the map; any RR grade separations will be on intersecting streets or roads.   

You are correct:
https://www.odot.org/meetings/a2017/170615/ProjectDesignUpdate42919.pdf

Full details at:
https://www.ok.gov/triton/modules/newsroom/newsroom_article.php?id=277&article_id=23200

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 11, 2020, 07:04:35 AM

Quote from: sparker on August 11, 2020, 02:36:34 AM
In short, ODOT didn't have the money to complete the entire project at once, so they split it into a more difficult and less difficult half; and they're choosing to do the more difficult/in-town section initially.  Actually, considering the fiscal circumstances that's something of an admirable plan of attack; let the easier-to-deploy more rural segment be the one subject to inflationary pressure.

I would suspect that if TX extended I-45 up US 75 to the state line in a unilateral move, ODOT would at least arrange improvement of their portion of the corridor north to US 70 near Durant -- as the most obvious traffic generator -- so as to enhance the commercial prospects of the immediate area; whether they'd participate in actual I-45 designation/signage up to that point remains TBD. 

That's a good point.  It could end up looking like I-72 in Missouri, where they at least got it over the state line, but then let it end there for a long time, with a long-distance extension coming who knows when.

It would be, for all intents & purposes, the inverse of the situation upriver with I-44:  OK had a facility (the Bailey Turnpike) that they wanted to designate as an Interstate, so they got TX to agree to continue the designation south to the nearest population center/traffic generator, Wichita Falls.  And 38 years later it still hasn't gone any farther!

Yeah, it's frustrating that I-44 simply dead-ends as a stub in Wichita Falls. The highway junction where it ends is kind of impressive. That tall fly-over ramp from Kell Freeway to I-44 is a little stomach churning.

At least there seems to be a little progress regarding the 2-digit Interstate stubs in Texas. There's long term hope of I-27 being extended. I-69 is making the end of I-37 more interesting. Progress on I-44 in Texas is in even more tiny baby steps.

TX DOT finished the 4-lane upgrade of US-277 between Abilene and Wichita Falls. Stamford, Haskell, Munday, Goree, Seymour and Holliday all have bypasses with some limited access function. Overall, if TX DOT decided on fully converting the Wichita Falls to Abilene road into an Interstate it wouldn't be difficult to do at all.

The biggest problem facing an I-44 extension is on the SW outskirts of Wichita Falls: the non-freeway gap between the end of Kell Freeway and the Holliday bypass. TX DOT did a number of studies and held public meetings over the design alternatives. They had a couple or so route alternatives for freeways on new terrain paths as well as a more modest, non-freeway upgrade of existing US-82/277. Unfortunately it looks like TX DOT is going to go with the cheaper, non-freeway thing. IIRC I think all that "upgrade" does is widen the non-divided 4-lane road into a 5-lane road with a center turn lane and (maybe) better pavement. Very ho hum.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2020, 02:58:20 PM
Yeah, it's frustrating that I-44 simply dead-ends as a stub in Wichita Falls. The highway junction where it ends is kind of impressive. That tall fly-over ramp from Kell Freeway to I-44 is a little stomach churning.

At least there seems to be a little progressing regarding the 2-digit Interstate stubs in Texas. There's long term hope of I-27 being extended. I-69 is making the end of I-37 more interesting. Progress on I-44 in Texas is in even more tiny baby steps.

TX DOT finished the 4-lane upgrade of US-277 between Abilene and Wichita Falls. Stamford, Haskell, Munday, Goree, Seymour and Holliday all have bypasses with some limited access function. Overall, if TX DOT decided on fully converting the Wichita Falls to Abilene road into an Interstate it wouldn't be difficult to do at all.

The biggest problem facing an I-44 extension is on the SW outskirts of Wichita Falls: the non-freeway gap between the end of Kell Freeway and the Holliday bypass. TX DOT did a number of studies and held public meetings over the design alternatives. They had a couple or so route alternatives for freeways on new terrain paths as well as a more modest, non-freeway upgrade of existing US-82/277. Unfortunately it looks like TX DOT is going to go with the cheaper, non-freeway thing. IIRC I think all that "upgrade" does is widen the non-divided 4-lane road into a 5-lane road with a center turn lane and (maybe) better pavement. Very ho hum.

The main problem with 5-lane "quasi-divided" facilities is that while they do have the effect of increasing capacity over a conventional 2-lane highway while maintaining full local access (more often than not a driving factor in the decision to deploy them), they tend to attract additional roadside facilities to those segments, making it more difficult to (a) upgrade them later into a freeway+frontage situation or (b) effect a bypass without going far afield from the existing route.  TX has a working "temporary facility" model effective elsewhere -- build the frontages, let those serve as main traffic lanes -- with full local/private access, of course -- until funds can be identified and apportioned to build the freeway in the "median".  But this means acquiring enough right of way to accommodate the "full monty" facililty, which of course means more short-term funds spent.  But at least in the case of 82/277 here, some alternative new-terrain alignments have been identified; it would be prudent for TxDOT to acquire/reserve a ROW along one of those and somewhere down the line effectively make their 5-laner a business loop. 

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2020, 02:58:20 PM
TX DOT finished the 4-lane upgrade of US-277 between Abilene and Wichita Falls. Stamford, Haskell, Munday, Goree, Seymour and Holliday all have bypasses with some limited access function. Overall, if TX DOT decided on fully converting the Wichita Falls to Abilene road into an Interstate it wouldn't be difficult to do at all.

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

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2020, 02:58:20 PM
Yeah, it's frustrating that I-44 simply dead-ends as a stub in Wichita Falls. The highway junction where it ends is kind of impressive. That tall fly-over ramp from Kell Freeway to I-44 is a little stomach churning.

At least there seems to be a little progressing regarding the 2-digit Interstate stubs in Texas. There's long term hope of I-27 being extended. I-69 is making the end of I-37 more interesting. Progress on I-44 in Texas is in even more tiny baby steps.

You forgot I-2  :)

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2020, 02:58:20 PM
Yeah, it's frustrating that I-44 simply dead-ends as a stub in Wichita Falls. The highway junction where it ends is kind of impressive. That tall fly-over ramp from Kell Freeway to I-44 is a little stomach churning.

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

Listed in the September bid openings:

• Construction of the Kinkead Road interchange in McAlester. $27 million.

Listed as provisional for October:

• New Port of Entry near the OK91 interchange - $5.3 million
• Modifications to the OK91 interchange - $2.6 million

No plans have been posted yet.

Quote from: rte66man on August 14, 2020, 05:20:33 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2020, 02:58:20 PM
Yeah, it's frustrating that I-44 simply dead-ends as a stub in Wichita Falls. The highway junction where it ends is kind of impressive. That tall fly-over ramp from Kell Freeway to I-44 is a little stomach churning.

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

IIRC, back in the early '90's I saw long-range plans to continue the freeway east past downtown; it would have eventually become an expressway connecting (and possibly partially replacing) the TX 79 diagonal into OK.  That route gets a lot of truck traffic; I've used it more than once to and from US 70 to get to US 287. 

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

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

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

Quote from: rte66manThey missed Anson. Do you know if TxDOT has any plans for a bypass?

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

Quote from: Revive 755You forgot I-2

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

Quote from: rte66manIt's obvious that this interchange was supposed to be a full stack with an eastern extension of Kell passing just south of downtown. I would assume it would have followed TX447 but I'm not sure where it would have ended up. Does anyone know?

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

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 16, 2020, 01:23:50 PM

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

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

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

Quote from: rte66manThey missed Anson. Do you know if TxDOT has any plans for a bypass?

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

Quote from: Revive 755You forgot I-2

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

Quote from: rte66manIt's obvious that this interchange was supposed to be a full stack with an eastern extension of Kell passing just south of downtown. I would assume it would have followed TX447 but I'm not sure where it would have ended up. Does anyone know?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps roads will be improved in a few years.

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

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

Quote from: rte66man on August 04, 2020, 09:03:44 PM
I hope ODOT is still going to eliminate the at-grade intersection at Preston.

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

Quote from: bugo on August 23, 2020, 06:38:48 AM

Quote from: rte66man on August 04, 2020, 09:03:44 PM
I hope ODOT is still going to eliminate the at-grade intersection at Preston.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: rte66man on August 04, 2020, 09:03:44 PM
I hope ODOT is still going to eliminate the at-grade intersection at Preston.

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

Quote from: bugo on August 24, 2020, 11:19:49 AM

Quote from: rte66man on August 04, 2020, 09:03:44 PM
I hope ODOT is still going to eliminate the at-grade intersection at Preston.

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

interchange

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 23, 2020, 07:59:07 PM

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 24, 2020, 05:29:54 PM

Quote from: bugo on August 24, 2020, 11:19:49 AM

Quote from: rte66man on August 04, 2020, 09:03:44 PM
I hope ODOT is still going to eliminate the at-grade intersection at Preston.

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

interchange

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

Quote from: rte66man on August 29, 2020, 10:53:31 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 24, 2020, 05:29:54 PM

Quote from: bugo on August 24, 2020, 11:19:49 AM

Quote from: rte66man on August 04, 2020, 09:03:44 PM
I hope ODOT is still going to eliminate the at-grade intersection at Preston.

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

interchange

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

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

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 30, 2020, 03:54:02 PM

Quote from: rte66man on August 29, 2020, 10:53:31 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 24, 2020, 05:29:54 PM

Quote from: bugo on August 24, 2020, 11:19:49 AM

Quote from: rte66man on August 04, 2020, 09:03:44 PM
I hope ODOT is still going to eliminate the at-grade intersection at Preston.

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

interchange

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: sparker on August 30, 2020, 06:05:34 PM
Pretty much "Breezewooded" to death.  There was such an outcry from businesses arrayed along the existing US 69 arterial (motels, restaurants, auto repair facilities, etc.) that made it to OKC that the project was infinitely shelved.  That seems to be a repeating theme along this corridor -- it seems some parties (in various venues) want the corridor to -- at least in sections -- be just inefficient enough to prompt travelers, commercial and otherwise, to think "gee...as long as I'm slowed down to a crawl, I may as well stop to (a) eat (b) fill up the tank (c) get some snacks for the road (d) pick up odds & ends thought of while driving, etc., etc."  Of course, the incentive's a bit different in Stringtown and other identified speed traps, but the concept's the same -- keep that low-lying fruit coming! 

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

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

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

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

QuoteIt probably wouldn't be very difficult.

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

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

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

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

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

Quoteconsigned to a filing cabinet well out of the public view

How often do they do this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 01, 2020, 11:42:29 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: rte66man on September 02, 2020, 06:38:54 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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

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

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

Quote from: sparker on September 02, 2020, 12:31:03 PM

Quote from: rte66man on September 02, 2020, 06:38:54 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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

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

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

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

Quote from: rte66man on September 02, 2020, 02:18:53 PM

Quote from: sparker on September 02, 2020, 12:31:03 PM

Quote from: rte66man on September 02, 2020, 06:38:54 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 30, 2020, 09:31:42 PM

Quote from: sparker on August 30, 2020, 06:05:34 PM
Pretty much "Breezewooded" to death.  There was such an outcry from businesses arrayed along the existing US 69 arterial (motels, restaurants, auto repair facilities, etc.) that made it to OKC that the project was infinitely shelved.  That seems to be a repeating theme along this corridor -- it seems some parties (in various venues) want the corridor to -- at least in sections -- be just inefficient enough to prompt travelers, commercial and otherwise, to think "gee...as long as I'm slowed down to a crawl, I may as well stop to (a) eat (b) fill up the tank (c) get some snacks for the road (d) pick up odds & ends thought of while driving, etc., etc."  Of course, the incentive's a bit different in Stringtown and other identified speed traps, but the concept's the same -- keep that low-lying fruit coming! 

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: sparker on September 02, 2020, 06:28:12 PM
All it takes is a drive down the commercial section of the US 69 arterial through west Muskogee (which I've done several times) to determine that any substantial in situ improvement to expedite through traffic would be next to impossible without truncating much of the private-business access -- which is part and parcel of the gist of the bypass objections.  There are probably 80-100 private driveways along the commercialized stretch between the old rail underpass and the US 62 EB intersection to the north, along with several intersecting streets, some of them fully crossing US 69.  This isn't a city-center facility that can be readily "boulevardized"; it's a haphazardly developed configuration geared toward sucking business from both directions of traffic on the highway.   And there's just not enough available ROW to install any sort of frontage system without significant property-taking -- which would obviate the whole purpose of maintaining the current facility as the through route. 

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

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

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

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

I'm aware that that may be an obstacle.

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

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

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

Quote from: rte66manI've seen the plans for the rebuild of the Savanna interchange into the Ammunition depot. I think it's scheduled to go out to bid early next year. I'll have to check. With all the scheduled projects in and around McAlester, it would be easy to sign 45 south past the Savanna interchange once they are completed.

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

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

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

Quote from: sparker on September 03, 2020, 08:05:28 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would venture a guess that any plans that involved a median barrier on the existing US 69 street facility would meet with howls of objections from the businesses along that route.  Those on the east side of the highway would piss & moan about their not being directly or readily accessible to SB traffic -- and vice-versa.  Although in reality it likely wouldn't work out that way, the prospect of losing up to 50% of one's business might not provide much in the way of salability when such a plan is presented locally.

Did you see all the jughandles in my drawing?  There's no 50% loss of business.  You just turn around to get to the other side.

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

Unfortunately, my gut instinct tells me you're probably right, and any improvements to US 69 through Muskogee will be of a more conventional, incremental nature than that I'm proposing.  That's why I put the drawing in Fictional Highways.  I think it's a good idea if you don't mind my saying so, but I recognize the improbability of it ever being implemented.

I will add however, that if you can point to any business in New Jersey that's been negatively affected by a median barrier creating a RIRO situation where drivers have to travel a bit in the opposite direction to access said business, which is a situation that occurs all over New Jersey (and in much of Pennsylvania, and in many other states, especially Michigan if you look at the way they use Michigan Lefts), then I'll re-consider my upgrade concept.

But I also realize that not all business owners are knowledgeable or curious enough to look at how these kinds of access management, safety improvement, and flow improvement designs actually work in the real world.  So I get that my Fictional Highways concept would likely be met with resistance.  That doesn't mean it's a bad idea, though.

Quote from: stridentweasel on September 03, 2020, 10:58:58 AM

Quote from: sparker on September 03, 2020, 08:05:28 AM
I would venture a guess that any plans that involved a median barrier on the existing US 69 street facility would meet with howls of objections from the businesses along that route.  Those on the east side of the highway would piss & moan about their not being directly or readily accessible to SB traffic -- and vice-versa.  Although in reality it likely wouldn't work out that way, the prospect of losing up to 50% of one's business might not provide much in the way of salability when such a plan is presented locally.

Did you see all the jughandles in my drawing?  There's no 50% loss of business.  You just turn around to get to the other side.

Pertinent portion bolded.  He wasn't saying they would lose 50% of their business.  He was saying they'd expect to lose 50% of their business.

Also, there's a range between 0 and 50.  It's reasonable to say some non-zero percentage of their business would be lost.

Quote from: kphoger on September 03, 2020, 11:09:18 AM
Pertinent portion bolded.  He wasn't saying they would lose 50% of their business.  He was saying they'd expect to lose 50% of their business.

I guess I misunderstood what he meant at first.

Quote
Also, there's a range between 0 and 50.  It's reasonable to say some non-zero percentage of their business would be lost.

If I was going back to grad school, that could probably be a master's thesis.  There are already studies on access management in general, but I'm not sure if the New Jersey style has been studied as rigorously as the general case.

If you do something like that, you spend a lot of money to piss off the business owners along the highway and the people wanting a freeway extension to be able to just skip over Muskogee.

You weren't kidding when you posted in another thread that you weren't good at the political side of things. :-D

I think you're failing to understand that the people on US-69 do not care about Muskogee. They don't want to be in Muskogee, they don't want to buy anything in Muskogee, they don't want to visit the Muskogee County Courthouse. If Muskogee didn't exist at all they'd be perfectly happy with that solution. You could demolish the whole town and they'd consider that an improvement. They're coming from some point, probably Dallas, and they want to get to I-44 so they can follow that toward their destination, which is probably Kansas City or St. Louis. It's just that US-69 is the route that satisfies that condition and Muskogee happens to be an obstacle along it.

So talking about transit, or bike lanes, or jughandles is not going to address the underlying concern–there is lots of traffic passing through this city that wants nothing to do with it. You can improve transit and local bike lane/pedestrian options all you want but neither destination nor origin of the traffic is in Muskogee, so those will do very little to meaningfully change AADT. After all, someone going Dallas—St. Louis via Muskogee is not going to abandon their car at the south end of town to take a bus.

Sprawl isn't a meaningful concern because again, none of the people using US-69 are going to suddenly decide to move to Muskogee because there's a freeway. Muskogee is in the way of them getting to St. Louis, why would they move there?

It's clear that a bypass is the best tool here. Pity they didn't propose it far enough away from Muskogee that they didn't have to get public input from people in town so we could actually have it.

It's just that there is a crap-ton of motels and especially restaurants along the corridor that probably only stay afloat because of that pass-through traffic needing to make a pit stop.

Build a bypass, then a Love's/Subway combo goes in at one end, and then nobody needs to stop in town anymore.

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 03, 2020, 01:35:03 PM
They're coming from some point, probably Dallas, and they want to get to I-44 so they can follow that toward their destination, which is probably Kansas City or St. Louis. It's just that US-69 is the route that satisfies that condition and Muskogee happens to be an obstacle along it.

Well, I'm sure I'll piss some people off by saying this, but I-35 is still there, off a bit to the west, waving its arms and saying, "Hey, what about me?"

True story:  When I drove a truck for a living, I didn't have required routes (except for the requirement of taking the dreadful Ambassador Bridge to get from Michigan to metro Toronto), but I did have strongly incentivized routes, because I was given assigned fuel stops and company policy required us to meet at least a certain percentage of these (I can't remember what the exact percentage was, nor what the penalty would be for failing to meet the policy, but it always at least looks good to follow the policy).  Well, here's the thing:  Whenever I had to drive from the Dallas area to Topeka, the Kansas City area, or somewhere in Missouri, I was almost always (if not always) given an assigned fuel stop that meant taking US 69 through Oklahoma.  If that were not the case, I most definitely would have taken I-35 instead (and then I-44 if going to Missouri, or I-335 if going to Topeka).  We had Elite Passes with no limit on tolls.  But since my assigned fuel stop put me on US 69 through Oklahoma, I suffered through US 69 through Oklahoma.  And I honestly don't care that they're only paying me for the mileage of the shortest route; I would have always preferred to use the freer-flowing, easier, and probably faster route.

Just checking drive times on Google:  For Dallas to Kansas City, MO, US 75->US 69->I-44->I-49 versus I-35->Kansas Turnpike are evenly matched (the former wins by a whole freaking minute).  For Dallas to Topeka, I-35->Kansas Turnpike comes out ahead of all the alternatives by more than 45 minutes.  For Dallas to Springfield, MO, US 75->US 69->I-44 wins over I-35->I-44 by 23 minutes, although the all-Interstate option will probably feel faster, and it's a question of how much stop-and-go are you willing to trudge through to save those 23 minutes.  For Dallas to St. Louis, MO, US 75->US 69->I-44 is again the winner, but I-30->US 67 is only behind by 2 minutes, and I-30->I-40->I-55 (the all-Interstate option) only adds 29 minutes.

So, point taken regarding Dallas to St. Louis, but we already have a lot of Interstates, and "how many more do we actually need?" is not an unfair question.

Wow, this thread has certainly blown up from the intent I started it with 3 years ago......... lot of Oklahoma hate here.

In all honesty, at this point, it's futile to try and upgrade the US 69 corridor any further.

Quote from: stridentweasel on September 03, 2020, 03:57:05 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 03, 2020, 01:35:03 PM
They're coming from some point, probably Dallas, and they want to get to I-44 so they can follow that toward their destination, which is probably Kansas City or St. Louis. It's just that US-69 is the route that satisfies that condition and Muskogee happens to be an obstacle along it.

Well, I'm sure I'll piss some people off by saying this, but I-35 is still there, off a bit to the west, waving its arms and saying, "Hey, what about me?" [...] So, point taken regarding Dallas to St. Louis, but we already have a lot of Interstates, and "how many more do we actually need?" is not an unfair question.

The problem is that while I-35 is there, US-69 is a good enough route that it already draws a lot of trucks and traffic. This isn't a speculative "it would promote economic development if we had a freeway here" project. The traffic is already there, the question is how do you best serve that traffic and the city of Muskogee?

(Also, of note, most of my experience with US-69 was going Goldsby, OK → Springfield, MO, via I-35 → I-40 → US-69 → I-44. I was a broke college student and could barely afford the gas, much less tolls, so this was a good shunpike route that also avoided Tulsa.)

All of this back and forth about the Muskogee bypass reminds me of the fights in the 60's and 70's over interstate routings.  Cities sued to ensure routes ran close enough to their cities to ensure survival (in their eyes). Some things never change.

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 03, 2020, 05:10:16 PM
(Also, of note, most of my experience with US-69 was going Goldsby, OK → Springfield, MO, via I-35 → I-40 → US-69 → I-44. I was a broke college student and could barely afford the gas, much less tolls, so this was a good shunpike route that also avoided Tulsa.)

I realize this statement is in parentheses, but it does raise a valid point of how many more people would shunpike the Turner Turnpike and most of the Will Rogers if US 69 was upgraded to freeway (or even non-stop expressway) status between I-40 and I-44.

Quote from: skluth on September 04, 2020, 01:37:07 PM
I realize this statement is in parentheses, but it does raise a valid point of how many more people would shunpike the Turner Turnpike and most of the Will Rogers if US 69 was upgraded to freeway (or even non-stop expressway) status between I-40 and I-44.

I wouldn't be surprised if the OTA is looking at the US 69 corridor with dollar signs in their eyes.

Quote from: stridentweasel on September 04, 2020, 01:54:55 PM

Quote from: skluth on September 04, 2020, 01:37:07 PM
I realize this statement is in parentheses, but it does raise a valid point of how many more people would shunpike the Turner Turnpike and most of the Will Rogers if US 69 was upgraded to freeway (or even non-stop expressway) status between I-40 and I-44.

I wouldn't be surprised if the OTA is looking at the US 69 corridor with dollar signs in their eyes.

If that were actually the case, the proposal that was forwarded about a decade ago to deploy a turnpike down the corridor would have gotten much more traction than it did.  Tolls or not, they're still probably gun-shy about anything in the Muskogee area -- but I'd place a bet on their willingness to do something from Caddo to McAlester as a tolled facility; they'd weigh the revenues/benefits against any political backlash from Atoka and Stringtown, and it's a better than even chance the toll road comes out on top.  I'd guess the northern end would dovetail into the INT (with, obviously, a free-flow interchange to northward US 69).  That would provide two paths from TX to I-40, splitting at the INT interchange (and, by extension, adding Tulsa to the mix, albeit with mixed facility level). 

At the risk of sliding into Fictional territory -- has anyone in OK circles ever considered extending the INT north and east of US 75 to at least the Creek Turnpike southeast of Tulsa?  That would accomplish much of what Scott suggested in a previous post -- an effective bypass of Muskogee that is far enough away from that city to obviate any objections -- and it would have the benefit of also obviating any significant or comprehensive improvements to US 75 north of there.  And as a facility radiating out from a populated area (Tulsa, of course) it would likely attract quite a bit of traffic and subsequently revenue.  And Muskogee shouldn't have cause to complain in any case -- their motel-laden street will still get the shunpikers!     

Just from looking at it on aerial, the only part of US 75 between I-40 and the Creek Turnpike that doesn't look like it could feasibly upgraded to a freeway is the part through Okmulgee.  [Fictional Highways]And there, it might be possible to line up a bypass within the OK 56 ROW, swing it northwest around the airport, and swing it southwest to near the Deep Fork River.[/Fictional Highways]  But the rest of that segment of US 75--honestly, it looks easier to upgrade that to a freeway than it was to upgrade US 54/400/Kellogg Avenue in Wichita, and that actually got done (slowly).

Quote from: stridentweasel on September 04, 2020, 04:17:03 PM
Just from looking at it on aerial, the only part of US 75 between I-40 and the Creek Turnpike that doesn't look like it could feasibly upgraded to a freeway is the part through Okmulgee.  [Fictional Highways]And there, it might be possible to line up a bypass within the OK 56 ROW, swing it northwest around the airport, and swing it southwest to near the Deep Fork River.[/Fictional Highways]  But the rest of that segment of US 75--honestly, it looks easier to upgrade that to a freeway than it was to upgrade US 54/400/Kellogg Avenue in Wichita, and that actually got done (slowly).

But that would require the perennially cash-strapped ODOT to plan and build a free (to the public) facility; one would think that a turnpike on new terrain to the east would provide revenue that isn't being accrued as of yet.  And it would connect to the turnpike system on both ends, so drivers would likely view it as a continuation of the roadway they selected in the first place, rather than "shit...I've got to get on a toll road!"  And seeing as how both Tulsa and OKC are "tollway central", it's familiar territory to both local users and non-local but regular turnpike drivers -- just another pike to add to the "family".

Quote from: sparker on September 04, 2020, 06:08:38 PM
But that would require the perennially cash-strapped ODOT to plan and build a free (to the public) facility; one would think that a turnpike on new terrain to the east would provide revenue that isn't being accrued as of yet.  And it would connect to the turnpike system on both ends, so drivers would likely view it as a continuation of the roadway they selected in the first place, rather than "shit...I've got to get on a toll road!"  And seeing as how both Tulsa and OKC are "tollway central", it's familiar territory to both local users and non-local but regular turnpike drivers -- just another pike to add to the "family".

Or:

[Fictional Highways]Let the OTA take over US 75 between the Creek Turnpike and I-40.  If the AASHTO even cares anymore about US highways not being toll roads, designate an alternate US 75 somewhere else.  Or:  Truncate US 75 so its southern terminus is the Creek Turnpike or I-44, which works if you go with my new Fictional Highways idea that's actually in the Fictional Highways board: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27609.0 [/Fictional Highways]

By the way, I honestly think upgrading US 75 (whoever funds it and by whichever means) is the far better alternative, because any new highway running parallel to it would likely go through environmentally sensitive areas, and there aren't a lot of places you can squeeze it in between existing developments in the southern Tulsa suburbs--although there is a big golf course you could just take and let people play their golf somewhere else.

Quote from: stridentweasel on September 04, 2020, 06:25:31 PM

Quote from: sparker on September 04, 2020, 06:08:38 PM
But that would require the perennially cash-strapped ODOT to plan and build a free (to the public) facility; one would think that a turnpike on new terrain to the east would provide revenue that isn't being accrued as of yet.  And it would connect to the turnpike system on both ends, so drivers would likely view it as a continuation of the roadway they selected in the first place, rather than "shit...I've got to get on a toll road!"  And seeing as how both Tulsa and OKC are "tollway central", it's familiar territory to both local users and non-local but regular turnpike drivers -- just another pike to add to the "family".

Or:

[Fictional Highways]Let the OTA take over US 75 between the Creek Turnpike and I-40.  If the AASHTO even cares anymore about US highways not being toll roads, designate an alternate US 75 somewhere else.  Or:  Truncate US 75 so its southern terminus is the Creek Turnpike or I-44, which works if you go with my new Fictional Highways idea that's actually in the Fictional Highways board: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27609.0 [/Fictional Highways]

By the way, I honestly think upgrading US 75 (whoever funds it and by whichever means) is the far better alternative, because any new highway running parallel to it would likely go through environmentally sensitive areas, and there aren't a lot of places you can squeeze it in between existing developments in the southern Tulsa suburbs--although there is a big golf course you could just take and let people play their golf somewhere else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBTR99sYBYQ

Golf course = fair game?!

Quote from: sparker on September 05, 2020, 03:04:57 PM
And to the point raised above:  OK's the archetypal "red state"; soak-the-rich/business class concepts generally don't fly there -- at least currently.  But in the aftermath of COVID and other disasters (especially if wildfires plague western OK during heat waves), I'd expect that most anything would be on the table as revenue sources -- including those deemed politically problematic in "normal" times. 

Oklahoma's always had money problems, even in good economic times. After the state passed medical marijuana by referendum, there was some effort to water it down in the Legislature...until they saw just how much money it was bringing in, and then those bills quietly died.

One of the biggest problems in Oklahoma is the fact that many of its residents are cheapskates and don't want to pay their taxes. I have often said that Republicans are the reason we can't have nice things, and Oklahoma is a prime example.

Quote from: bugo on September 09, 2020, 12:44:03 AM
One of the biggest problems in Oklahoma is the fact that many of its residents are cheapskates and don't want to pay their taxes. I have often said that Republicans are the reason we can't have nice things, and Oklahoma is a prime example.

+1000000

In Oregon, they have that U.S. 97 which needs to be widened for connectivity and traffic purposes. I read the article referring to every body as: "Stake Holders" ... Every body that uses a Road is a Stake Holder. While there are many highways that still go through towns (and as at grade roads) ... that does not mean that they are supposed to be some parking lot system for the town. There are other large businesses, industries, theme parks, with their own streets ... but that is not quite the same thing. They are supposed to be isolated from the main highways, not smack dab in the middle of them.

I support The Economy by paying and driving the beautiful Toll Roads   :coffee: in stead of visiting silly Muskogee.

Quote from: bugo on September 09, 2020, 12:44:03 AM
One of the biggest problems in Oklahoma is the fact that many of its residents are cheapskates and don't want to pay their taxes. I have often said that Republicans are the reason we can't have nice things, and Oklahoma is a prime example.

Not restricted to Oklahoma or Republicans. Everyone wants things (good roads, etc) but no one wants to pay for them as "their taxes are too high. Waste and fraud need to be eliminated before I agree to pay more."  I worked for the OK House in the 90's and I can tell you there isn't enough waste and fraud to pay for all of the things people want.

Quote from: bugo on September 09, 2020, 12:44:03 AM
One of the biggest problems in Oklahoma is the fact that many of its residents are cheapskates and don't want to pay their taxes. I have often said that Republicans are the reason we can't have nice things, and Oklahoma is a prime example.

The same could be said for Arkansas. Also, ARDOT wastes money on pet projects, like building half-mile state highways as corporate driveways.

Quote from: rte66man on September 09, 2020, 10:07:45 AM

Quote from: bugo on September 09, 2020, 12:44:03 AM
One of the biggest problems in Oklahoma is the fact that many of its residents are cheapskates and don't want to pay their taxes. I have often said that Republicans are the reason we can't have nice things, and Oklahoma is a prime example.

Not restricted to Oklahoma or Republicans. Everyone wants things (good roads, etc) but no one wants to pay for them as "their taxes are too high. Waste and fraud need to be eliminated before I agree to pay more."  I worked for the OK House in the 90's and I can tell you there isn't enough waste and fraud to pay for all of the things people want.

Just another vicious circle.  Low-tax states, particularly in reference to corporate/business taxes, use those rates to attempt to entice employers.  Some businesses do come as a result, but they tend not to employ the level of personnel that significantly moves the state's overall employment level; much large-scale manufacturing (e.g., the Toyota plant in MS and the BMW plant in SC) utilizes extensive automation these days (capital being deductible while labor isn't).  So the corporations pay taxes at reduced rates compared with other states -- but the level of employment increase is marginal, so revenues from personal income taxes remain largely stagnant.  Of course, as a result services tend to be somewhat limited (offsetting, at least for most) the state's attractiveness) -- but those that are there cost money anyway.  But without the addition of "gainfully employed", whether from an existing un- or under-employed labor pool or by influx from elsewhere, the low corporate tax rates tend not to cover the states' expenditure level required to accommodate their presence (new access roads, new interchanges, etc.).  But taxes are, to coin the cliche', the "3rd rail" of politics in the states choosing to maintain them at low levels; the appearance of doing so, even to the detriment of addressing state needs, seems to be paramount.  So the politicos continue their practice of repeatedly trying to entice new corporate investment even though the overall revenues are neutral or marginal at best, while trying to placate the "working class" with social policy proclamations.  Not in any way a matter of public-sector waste, just the inability to raise sufficient revenue for the state's needs.   

This ridiculous game of giving big companies tax giveaways is rampant on every level, from federal down to local. Some cities and towns are risking insolvency. They're giving long term tax holidays to new businesses as a means of attracting them to that location. Town and cities are pitted against each other to sweeten the deals. Meanwhile, those same cities and towns grow ever more dependent on individual taxpayers/employees. Those "little people" are getting squeezed harder than ever on basic living costs. I saw one headline a couple days ago that said over 50% of America's young adults (people under 30) were living with parents. This worsening structural imbalance in the tax base is not sustainable.

Quote from: rte66man on August 23, 2020, 11:49:01 AM

Quote from: bugo on August 23, 2020, 06:38:48 AM

Quote from: rte66man on August 04, 2020, 09:03:44 PM
I hope ODOT is still going to eliminate the at-grade intersection at Preston.

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

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

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

EA essentially finished.