https://muskogeenow.com/exclusive-state-plans-to-move-us-69-turn-it-into-interstate-like-system-running-around-muskogee
Proposal to reroute US 69 around Muskogee.
I've only been through there twice, but I don't remember it as being excessively congested. It seemed to me to be a typical four-lane bypass around a downtown area that has since become built-up with businesses.
I didn't know US 69 in OK was the deadliest (according to the article). Sad that OK isn't in a better financial condition. I-45 going into OK can't happen soon enough.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 08, 2017, 06:15:58 PM
I've only been through there twice, but I don't remember it as being excessively congested. It seemed to me to be a typical four-lane bypass around a downtown area that has since become built-up with businesses.
This is an accurate assessment, but it's also wedged in between a lengthy freeway segment and a fairly long bit of expressway. It can be a slog when there are a lot of trucks on the road, which is frequent.
ODOT actually plans something along US 69, and the Muskogee mayor opposes it; sounds like every other controversy involving US 69 -- except for the fact that ODOT Actually Planned Something! (at least along this particular highway). It seems like more than a few folks located along US 69 are emulating ostriches; with their sensory organs effectively buried, the reality that this corridor is the most heavily-trafficked non-Interstate corridor in the state -- particularly in regard to heavy trucks -- seems to have simultaneously lulled them into a pleasant dream (where money blithely flows from the pocketbooks of road users) devoid of downsides (see the prededing safety synopsis). What the folks in Muskogee need to do -- if this plan looks like it will become reality -- is to convince ODOT to forego the short-term savings of decommissioning the existing route, make it a REAL business loop, and publicize the hell out of it as "hotel/convention central" (also -- I'd make sure one of the local tribes snags some of the land adjacent to the current alignment for a big old casino complex, and let TV ads do the rest).
Even though ODOT can't seem to afford much in the way of road upgrades -- particularly in areas that aren't OKC and Tulsa -- they seem to be giving notice that when & if times are more amenable, there are some longstanding issues that need resolution, and removing through-put commercial traffic from what used to be a bypass but now is just another local business "drag" within an urbanized regional center is one of those priorities. At least they're looking ahead; we can only hope that the funding situation doesn't remain bleak for the foreseeable future!
Quote from: sparker on November 09, 2017, 02:13:59 AM
ODOT actually plans something along US 69, and the Muskogee mayor opposes it; sounds like every other controversy involving US 69 -- except for the fact that ODOT Actually Planned Something! (at least along this particular highway). It seems like more than a few folks located along US 69 are emulating ostriches; with their sensory organs effectively buried, the reality that this corridor is the most heavily-trafficked non-Interstate corridor in the state -- particularly in regard to heavy trucks -- seems to have simultaneously lulled them into a pleasant dream (where money blithely flows from the pocketbooks of road users) devoid of downsides (see the prededing safety synopsis). What the folks in Muskogee need to do -- if this plan looks like it will become reality -- is to convince ODOT to forego the short-term savings of decommissioning the existing route, make it a REAL business loop, and publicize the hell out of it as "hotel/convention central" (also -- I'd make sure one of the local tribes snags some of the land adjacent to the current alignment for a big old casino complex, and let TV ads do the rest).
Even though ODOT can't seem to afford much in the way of road upgrades -- particularly in areas that aren't OKC and Tulsa -- they seem to be giving notice that when & if times are more amenable, there are some longstanding issues that need resolution, and removing through-put commercial traffic from what used to be a bypass but now is just another local business "drag" within an urbanized regional center is one of those priorities. At least they're looking ahead; we can only hope that the funding situation doesn't remain bleak for the foreseeable future!
The concern seems to be for commercial interests along current 69. QT just built a new store at 69 and 62 East a couple years ago, plus there are several newer hotels.
Muskogee will become like every other bypassed town: money moves to the bypass, the old businesses rot.
Quote from: US71 on November 09, 2017, 01:09:23 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 09, 2017, 02:13:59 AM
ODOT actually plans something along US 69, and the Muskogee mayor opposes it; sounds like every other controversy involving US 69 -- except for the fact that ODOT Actually Planned Something! (at least along this particular highway). It seems like more than a few folks located along US 69 are emulating ostriches; with their sensory organs effectively buried, the reality that this corridor is the most heavily-trafficked non-Interstate corridor in the state -- particularly in regard to heavy trucks -- seems to have simultaneously lulled them into a pleasant dream (where money blithely flows from the pocketbooks of road users) devoid of downsides (see the prededing safety synopsis). What the folks in Muskogee need to do -- if this plan looks like it will become reality -- is to convince ODOT to forego the short-term savings of decommissioning the existing route, make it a REAL business loop, and publicize the hell out of it as "hotel/convention central" (also -- I'd make sure one of the local tribes snags some of the land adjacent to the current alignment for a big old casino complex, and let TV ads do the rest).
Even though ODOT can't seem to afford much in the way of road upgrades -- particularly in areas that aren't OKC and Tulsa -- they seem to be giving notice that when & if times are more amenable, there are some longstanding issues that need resolution, and removing through-put commercial traffic from what used to be a bypass but now is just another local business "drag" within an urbanized regional center is one of those priorities. At least they're looking ahead; we can only hope that the funding situation doesn't remain bleak for the foreseeable future!
The concern seems to be for commercial interests along current 69. QT just built a new store at 69 and 62 East a couple years ago, plus there are several newer hotels.
Muskogee will become like every other bypassed town: money moves to the bypass, the old businesses rot.
I'm a bit less cynical -- this project is likely far enough down the line for some degree of adjustment on the part of the businesses involved. I'm just surprised that a west bypass was proposed; I'd always thought that something involving OK 165 and the Muskogee Turnpike would be a consensus choice.
However, it's likely that this proposal will end up on the backlog pile of ODOT unfunded projects. We'll just have to see how things stack up if and when the state's financial state improves and stabilizes -- and whether or not a building spree ensues. IMHO, just about everyone along US 69 is probably safe for at least the next two decades.
Quote from: sparker on November 09, 2017, 02:13:59 AM
Even though ODOT can't seem to afford much in the way of road upgrades -- particularly in areas that aren't OKC and Tulsa -- they seem to be giving notice that when & if times are more amenable, there are some longstanding issues that need resolution, and removing through-put commercial traffic from what used to be a bypass but now is just another local business "drag" within an urbanized regional center is one of those priorities. At least they're looking ahead; we can only hope that the funding situation doesn't remain bleak for the foreseeable future!
from the October 2017 OK Transportation Commission meeting minutes at:
http://www.odot.org/tcomm/minutes17/tc_minutes-201710.pdf
Quote
So that brings me to why we're changing our strategy a little bit with this 8-Year Plan. We have to complete some of these corridors. We have been, I'm not going to say just messing around, but we have been hit or miss on some of our corridor projects. I-35 should have been finished long before it was completed; but we have so many needs in the State that we had to address anything and everything. But we're going to focus on corridors..........We have a huge corridor in eastern Oklahoma called US-69; it is a major truck route. The Federal Government has put emphasis on truck and freight corridors, so we have got to attack that corridor. And we've done so with the first project being in Calera, which is south of Durant. As you recall, we got a Fast Lane Grant, which is going to jump start that project. And so we dropped that into the 8-Year Plan and we are focused on that. We have other needs on US-69; with trucking bottlenecks all up and down 69, it has interstate-like traffic on it, so we have to address that.
As you said, at least they are planning on addressing it as long as the money holds out (and the Legislature quits raiding the Transportation Fund to balance the budget).
No road anywhere is a good candidate for a "road diet".
Muskogee is a big enough town they'll be okay. They've already got an eastern bypass in the form of SH-165, after all.
Quote from: bugo on November 09, 2017, 11:58:55 PM
No road anywhere is a good candidate for a "road diet".
I would disagree. Experience has shown that several roadways have operated more efficiently and more safely when dropped from a 4-lane undivided without turn lanes to a 3-lane (one lane each way plus center left turn lane). This is the most common form of "road diet". May not specifically apply to existing US 69 through Muskogee, but you seemed to be speaking very generally.
It shouldn't be JUST about capacity. Operations and safety are also hugely important.
Quote from: froggie on November 10, 2017, 12:52:11 PM
Quote from: bugo on November 09, 2017, 11:58:55 PM
No road anywhere is a good candidate for a "road diet".
I would disagree. Experience has shown that several roadways have operated more efficiently and more safely when dropped from a 4-lane undivided without turn lanes to a 3-lane (one lane each way plus center left turn lane). This is the most common form of "road diet". May not specifically apply to existing US 69 through Muskogee, but you seemed to be speaking very generally.
It shouldn't be JUST about capacity. Operations and safety are also hugely important.
Arkansas likes to convert 4-Lanes into 5-Lanes without widening the road. Ask Bugo about Mena.
Quote from: US71Muskogee will become like every other bypassed town: money moves to the bypass, the old businesses rot.
That's not necessarily true. I-44 effectively bypasses much of Lawton. Aside from a casino and a few hotels very little of Lawton's main business district is along I-44. Cache Road is by far the most busy zone in that city.
And then there's other towns in Oklahoma near I-35 that have survived being bypassed: Ardmore, Davis, Paul's Valley, Purcell, Guthrie. There are towns along the Turner and Will Rogers Turnpikes that didn't die off or relocate their main streets next to the highway.
Quote from: froggie on November 10, 2017, 12:52:11 PM
Quote from: bugo on November 09, 2017, 11:58:55 PM
No road anywhere is a good candidate for a "road diet".
I would disagree. Experience has shown that several roadways have operated more efficiently and more safely when dropped from a 4-lane undivided without turn lanes to a 3-lane (one lane each way plus center left turn lane). This is the most common form of "road diet". May not specifically apply to existing US 69 through Muskogee, but you seemed to be speaking very generally.
It shouldn't be JUST about capacity. Operations and safety are also hugely important.
Agree, although I think that converting a four-lane undivided to a three-lane with a TWLTL actually adds to capacity because it allows traffic to move more freely. Best instance of a "road diet" I can come up with in my area is US 127 through Harrodsburg. A four-lane bypass was built around the east side of town and the existing route was converted from a four-lane undivided to a three-lane with a TWLTL. It's actually faster to get from one side of town to the other now if you go through downtown. Eliminating the possibility of people trying to turn left out of the inside lane has improved the flow of traffic.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 10, 2017, 02:33:28 PM
Quote from: US71Muskogee will become like every other bypassed town: money moves to the bypass, the old businesses rot.
That's not necessarily true. I-44 effectively bypasses much of Lawton. Aside from a casino and a few hotels very little of Lawton's main business district is along I-44. Cache Road is by far the most busy zone in that city.
And then there's other towns in Oklahoma near I-35 that have survived being bypassed: Ardmore, Davis, Paul's Valley, Purcell, Guthrie. There are towns along the Turner and Will Rogers Turnpikes that didn't die off or relocate their main streets next to the highway.
Indeed, driving by Lawton on the Turnpike, you'd never know you were passing by a city of almost 100k people (except for the speed limit dropping by 20 mph, that is). Obviously I don't have to tell you, but Fort Still isn't exactly a small reason for Lawton to survive apart from the highway network. And Guthrie has some reputation as a place to shop. One thing that stands out to me is that both Ardmore and Pauls Valley have embraced commercial development along the Interstate; both of them are towns I've stopped for gas and/or lunch at but that I've never driven farther into town at. Not being very familiar with Davis or Purcell, I wonder what has been the key to their survival. ?
Quote from: sparker on November 10, 2017, 04:18:03 PM
Getting back to Muskogee -- since the present US 69 N-S facility is itself a bypass of the original in-town alignment (it would be nice if some OK or nearby poster could dig up a map of the original 69 route through the city center; I don't recall seeing one on this forum -- although I could be mistaken); it could be surmised that the present route drew some level of business away from the original downtown when it was opened (I'm guessing sometime in the '50's or early '60's); an outer bypass might, for better or worse, mimic that action -- particularly if it were not too far afield. Road-related businesses (motels, etc.) seem to have a certain level of portability to them intrinsic to their business model.
One thing about the proposed route is that it would only have one interchange between its termini, which would limit the opportunities for development. I suspect that anyone who needs food, gas, lodging or other travel-related services would use the old bypass instead of the new one.
Quote from: kphogerIndeed, driving by Lawton on the Turnpike, you'd never know you were passing by a city of almost 100k people (except for the speed limit dropping by 20 mph, that is). Obviously I don't have to tell you, but Fort Still isn't exactly a small reason for Lawton to survive apart from the highway network. And Guthrie has some reputation as a place to shop. One thing that stands out to me is that both Ardmore and Pauls Valley have embraced commercial development along the Interstate; both of them are towns I've stopped for gas and/or lunch at but that I've never driven farther into town at. Not being very familiar with Davis or Purcell, I wonder what has been the key to their survival. ?
In Lawton's case, yes Fort Sill is a major employer and retired military make up a significant chunk of the population. Goodyear is another major employer; they have a large factory West of Lawton (in the Cache school district). There are other large employers. The area draws a decent amount of tourism. The business center of Lawton was once in the old downtown area, until parts of that turned into a red light district. That pushed a lot of development onto Cache Road and other streets heading West. The nicest parts of Lawton are out on the West and East sides, well out of view of traffic on I-44. The hotels and casino built over the past 20 years make I-44 look like Lawton has at least some life.
The towns surviving and even doing well near but not on I-35 have things to attract visitors or new residents.
Purcell is close enough to the OKC metro area that some people are buying homes there and commuting. Purcell has been doing things to make its downtown area more inviting. They modified a couple blocks of Main Street to boost parking capacity for shops there. Paul's Valley has a nice looking downtown area. Davis is near Turner Falls and Arbuckle Wilderness.
Stroud used to be a major destination along the Turner Turnpike, until the 5/3/99 tornado wiped out the big outlet mall there. I think towns along a toll road have a bigger challenge of convincing drivers to visit since the toll gates act as a barrier for both entering and leaving the highway. Still, towns along I-44 (on the old route 66 corridor) are still doing okay despite the turnpike.
The towns along US-69 in Oklahoma have to do like those other towns along I-35 and I-44: give travelers a reason to stop. Traffic lights and speed traps is not the way to do it.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 10, 2017, 08:17:43 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 10, 2017, 04:18:03 PM
Getting back to Muskogee -- since the present US 69 N-S facility is itself a bypass of the original in-town alignment (it would be nice if some OK or nearby poster could dig up a map of the original 69 route through the city center; I don't recall seeing one on this forum -- although I could be mistaken); it could be surmised that the present route drew some level of business away from the original downtown when it was opened (I'm guessing sometime in the '50's or early '60's); an outer bypass might, for better or worse, mimic that action -- particularly if it were not too far afield. Road-related businesses (motels, etc.) seem to have a certain level of portability to them intrinsic to their business model.
One thing about the proposed route is that it would only have one interchange between its termini, which would limit the opportunities for development. I suspect that anyone who needs food, gas, lodging or other travel-related services would use the old bypass instead of the new one.
If that's the case (referring to the single interchange), if & when the 2nd bypass is constructed, ODOT and/or a collective effort by the businesses along the original (bypass) route would probably benefit from extensive (large & repeated) signage approaching metro Muskogee stating something along the lines of "no service available on (I-45?); please use (US 69, if they're reasonably smart) for gas, food & lodging". Let's hope ODOT doesn't cheap out and decommission the entire present facility (or at least that part that's not multiplexed) but keeps it active as a viable local server. And if ODOT never moves US 69 over to the bypass (even if it doesn't become a I-45 extension, it could be "Bypass US 69"), AASHTO can't bitch about its retention on the current route -- which would give travelers a continuous & familiar pathway to the local amenities.
Quote from: sparker on November 10, 2017, 09:20:57 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 10, 2017, 08:17:43 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 10, 2017, 04:18:03 PM
Getting back to Muskogee -- since the present US 69 N-S facility is itself a bypass of the original in-town alignment (it would be nice if some OK or nearby poster could dig up a map of the original 69 route through the city center; I don't recall seeing one on this forum -- although I could be mistaken); it could be surmised that the present route drew some level of business away from the original downtown when it was opened (I'm guessing sometime in the '50's or early '60's); an outer bypass might, for better or worse, mimic that action -- particularly if it were not too far afield. Road-related businesses (motels, etc.) seem to have a certain level of portability to them intrinsic to their business model.
One thing about the proposed route is that it would only have one interchange between its termini, which would limit the opportunities for development. I suspect that anyone who needs food, gas, lodging or other travel-related services would use the old bypass instead of the new one.
If that's the case (referring to the single interchange), if & when the 2nd bypass is constructed, ODOT and/or a collective effort by the businesses along the original (bypass) route would probably benefit from extensive (large & repeated) signage approaching metro Muskogee stating something along the lines of "no service available on (I-45?); please use (US 69, if they're reasonably smart) for gas, food & lodging". Let's hope ODOT doesn't cheap out and decommission the entire present facility (or at least that part that's not multiplexed) but keeps it active as a viable local server. And if ODOT never moves US 69 over to the bypass (even if it doesn't become a I-45 extension, it could be "Bypass US 69"), AASHTO can't bitch about its retention on the current route -- which would give travelers a continuous & familiar pathway to the local amenities.
The current proposal calls for removal of two miles of US 69 south of Okmulgee Ave (62/64 West) and removing Bus 62 along Okmulgee between (current) US 69 and Main St so I have my doubts about "By-Pass 69"
Quote from: froggie on November 10, 2017, 12:52:11 PM
Quote from: bugo on November 09, 2017, 11:58:55 PM
No road anywhere is a good candidate for a "road diet".
I would disagree. Experience has shown that several roadways have operated more efficiently and more safely when dropped from a 4-lane undivided without turn lanes to a 3-lane (one lane each way plus center left turn lane). This is the most common form of "road diet". May not specifically apply to existing US 69 through Muskogee, but you seemed to be speaking very generally.
It shouldn't be JUST about capacity. Operations and safety are also hugely important.
Adding a turn lane is different. I'm referring to removing lanes and doing nothing else.
Quote from: kphoger on November 10, 2017, 04:07:58 PM
Not being very familiar with Davis or Purcell, I wonder what has been the key to their survival. ?
Purcell is a bedroom community for Oklahoma City and Norman. Going north on I-35 approaching OKC, you see the first big jump in traffic levels at Exit 95. There's a few places to shop in Purcell, but if you need anything not available in town, Norman is a pretty short drive away.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 11, 2017, 05:53:28 AM
Quote from: kphoger on November 10, 2017, 04:07:58 PM
Not being very familiar with Davis or Purcell, I wonder what has been the key to their survival. ?
Purcell is a bedroom community for Oklahoma City and Norman.
I agree they are for Norman but I disagree about OKC. It is impossible to get downtown or points north under an hour during the morning rush, especially if there is a wreck (or the perpetual construction somewhere along 35). I'm sure there are exceptions, but I doubt anyone has moved to Purcell after already having a job in OKC. There are too many other, closer options that greatly reduce the drive time.
My brother has lived there the past 6-7 years. He told me the prison east of Lexington and the Walmart distribution center near Pauls Valley are 2 of the biggest employers of Purcell residents. IMO, the people who work a places such as OU or Riverwind were already living in Purcell before they got those jobs. Same applies anyone commuting farther north.
I don't know about that. My dad commuted from Goldsby (which isn't too much north of Purcell) to OKC for years, having had the job in OKC first. Some people just like McClain County enough that they think it's worth it.
Oklahomans are tolerant of commute distances that would make any other state's residents want to throw up. I knew one woman who commuted from Washington to Ardmore on a daily basis. I thought that was ridiculous, until I learned that there are a decent number of people who work at WinStar Casino, in Thackerville (I-35 exit 1), who live in OKC due to a lack of desirable housing in Thackerville, Marietta, Ardmore, etc.
I know people who work in Lawton yet live in Duncan, commuting back and forth everyday on OK-7. Seems like a long way to drive, but it takes about a half hour each way. Getting across some parts of OKC will take longer.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 12, 2017, 08:10:17 PM
I know people who work in Lawton yet live in Duncan, commuting back and forth everyday on OK-7. Seems like a long way to drive, but it takes about a half hour each way. Getting across some parts of OKC will take longer.
That because no one wants to live in Lawton :bigass:
I had always heard the reason for that was the cost of housing. That was 20 or so years ago and may no longer be true.
The 30 minutes or so to get from Duncan to Fort Sill or Goodyear is nothing compared to going from Purcell to anything in OKC from downtown north. If there is a wreck on OK7, you can divert onto the shoulder without much of a delay as there just sin't that much traffic. If there is a wreck on 35, you are screwed.
I would imagine anyone living in Purcell and commuting to OKC would be commuting to downtown at the farthest. Purcell to, say, Tinker is an okay drive. If you wanted to live in a Purcell-like environment and work on the north side of town, you're probably going to be looking at places like Piedmont, Guthrie, or Okarche instead.
If there's a wreck on 35, it's not really a big deal unless it's right at the bridge over the Canadian. North of there, you can hit the OKC-area grid and bypass anything you want.
(https://muskogeenow.com/story_images/1510089620.jpg)
OK 165 should be extended west to meet this bypass at a 4th interchange as part of this proposal.
I wouldn't count on that. It'll be surprising if OkDOT could find this any time soon. I am worried that current major projects in the metros might come to a complete stop next year. The state will be facing, yet again, another half a billion budget hole. The legislators have fucked the state for a awhile.
Next year is the gubernatorial election. I'd hope that the election would revolve around whoever can come up with the better way of solving the budget issue once and for all. Hopefully it doesn't devolve into endless distractions about religion.
If progress is actually made next year, I will be surprised.
Quote from: txstateends on November 08, 2017, 06:20:16 PM
I didn't know US 69 in OK was the deadliest (according to the article). Sad that OK isn't in a better financial condition. I-45 going into OK can't happen soon enough.
It's just a matter of time...
Quote from: triplemultiplexOK 165 should be extended west to meet this bypass at a 4th interchange as part of this proposal.
Or just make that "Interchange #1" and make that southern bypassed part of 69 a local road connection to Oktaha Rd into Summit.
The E-W leg of OK 165 is not a freeway. It has traffic lights. Also, OK 165 ends at US 64. It's not getting extended.
Quote from: bugo on November 17, 2017, 12:02:20 AM
The E-W leg of OK 165 is not a freeway. It has traffic lights. Also, OK 165 ends at US 64. It's not getting extended.
Now I'm getting a bit confused, considering the relinquishments ODOT plans for the Muskogee area. Since us 64 comes up from the south and uses Peak Blvd. (the continuation of OK 165) to get over to current US 69 -- and ODOT relinquishment plans, once the planned western bypass is in place, include the US 64/69 multiplex north of there to Okmulgee Avenue, which is US 62/64 west of there and Business 62/64 east of there -- and the business portion is
also to be relinquished -- just where are they planning to reroute US 64? It seems to be quite a bit out of the way -- not to mention counterintuitive -- to put US 64 back on its business route and then subsume Business 62 north of downtown all the way to US 62 itself, and multiplex 64 with 62 west of there, including the "jog" down current US 69. The only other alternative utilizing existing ODOT-maintained facilities would be equally circuitous -- east on 165 and up multiplexed with 351 up to US 62. The lack of an interchange at West 33rd Street and the new planned bypass seems to throw a monkey wrench into this whole process. If anyone knows how ODOT is planning to deal with this issue, please post this info!
I stopped watching after the guy said this project would kill Muskogee. Sorry, but even if that were true, then fuck Muskogee. Regional needs supersede the ones of that of a town less than 50k people which is basically a suburb of Tulsa(even included in the MSA). For Muskogee's sake, if they think there whole industry is reliant on an at grade highway that could collapse if it's moved a mile still in the city limits, then the town should aspire to be something better.
But the fact is, Muskogee isn't going to die because of this. New infrastructure will create new growth if the demand is there. Even if it isn't, it will allow for the opportunity to happen when the time is right. Either way, this gives the city a chance to make this highway more pedestrian friendly which gives it new opportunities to reshape the community.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 23, 2017, 08:57:57 PM
I stopped watching after the guy said this project would kill Muskogee. Sorry, but even if that were true, then fuck Muskogee. Regional needs supersede the ones of that of a town less than 50k people which is basically a suburb of Tulsa(even included in the MSA). For Muskogee's sake, if they think there whole industry is reliant on an at grade highway that could collapse if it's moved a mile still in the city limits, then the town should aspire to be something better.
But the fact is, Muskogee isn't going to die because of this. New infrastructure will create new growth if the demand is there. Even if it isn't, it will allow for the opportunity to happen when the time is right. Either way, this gives the city a chance to make this highway more pedestrian friendly which gives it new opportunities to reshape the community.
It won't kill the town, just many of the businesses along the current highway. The big name hotels will move to the bypass, the independents will rot. Big corporate-owned restaurants will set up shop along the bypass, but the local diners will suffer.
This is happening now north of Shreveport, LA. Businesses are popping up along I-49 and a lot of mom & pop operations along 71 are dying.
Did Shreveport do anything to the existing road to upgrade it and beautify it? Such as add bike lanes, new landscaping, place-making aesthetic features? Also, is Shreveport growing or is it in decline? I don't know much about the city.
The Tulsa metro is certainly growing and not too far in Arkansas, the Bentonville metro is going nuts from what I've heard. It seems to me that there are steps the city can take to make this an attractive street and entice businesses and visitors. There is a big hospital, lots of homes, etc. I see potential in this area. Business 64(Okmulgee AVE?) goes directly into downtown. Pass a bond package that builds new bike lanes along this corridor that ties into newely built bike lanes along US-64 business route to downtown including other features I listed above. Have city planning come up with new zoning for to create a more urban environment in certain areas. Build new parks or plazas and create special place making.
OkDOT doesn't even have this for construction in their 8yr plan. They have time to come up with a plan. But they just seem to be saying no at this point.
The ODOT plans to decommission large chunks of present US 69 through Muskogee are short-sighted -- saving what in the larger picture are miniscule amounts of money but abandoning the current alignment as a through route. Their best bet would be to maintain US 69 on that stretch of highway, and designate the bypass as precisely that: BYPASS US 69 (unless an I-45 extension gets traction). Also, as compensation for local businesses, offer free advertising on the normal "big blue signs" at the ends of the bypass where the old road diverges -- in other words, let travelers whose schedule indicates a stop in Muskogee have the full knowledge of all the amenities (hotels, restaurants, etc.) on the existing road, leaving the freeway bypass to those who wouldn't be stopping there anyway because of schedules, time of day, and so forth. That's the thing about road-related businesses -- unless they're near a recreational destination or contain a major attractant (such as a state capital and its various public functions), even the best and most inviting of them can't and won't thrive if they're not in the right place at the right time. Muskogee's about 230 miles north of DFW; if one supposes 400-500 miles per day as about average for daily travel (short for "road warriors", but likely average for the typical non-pro driver), someone driving north from Houston (about 470 miles) or Austin (435 miles) or southwest from St. Louis (just about 400) would be in Muskogee at about the right time for overnighting consideration. And seeing that it's the largest city along the route between Joplin and north Texas, the chances are pretty good that someone planning a regional trip on that route will pencil in a Muskogee overnight stop -- but less so regarding KC, at about 280 miles or DFW's 230 -- unless they're on a slower schedule because of family or age. The bottom line is that Muskogee's status as a city that is likely to have a greater variety of accommodations and amenities than most other places along the corridor means that regardless of whether there's a bypass or not, the hotels and restaurants along current US 69 will likely retain much of their current business level. Muskogee isn't a "destination" city unless visiting the area's plentiful waterways and lakes is part of the itinerary; if it is, those folks not camping out will find their way to "hotel row" anyway. If ODOT and the city make it easy to access the current commercial corridor -- and take it upon themselves to publicize that access -- there's no reason to suppose that building a bypass will be catastrophic for those businesses. The opposition seems to have adopted a "Breezewood" attitude -- although the circumstances are quite dissimilar; they seem to reason that without a "captive audience" rolling slowly past their businesses, those businesses will rot & die. But if a traveler is using a booking service -- including those provided by the hotel chains themselves -- or any number of travel-related apps, they'll end up in Muskogee anyway if that's the appropriate place for an overnight stop -- and on that particular corridor, it's where the greatest concentration of desirable accommodations are located (save the small cluster around the US 69/I-40 junction). If stopping in Muskogee is called for, travelers will find their way to these accommodations -- even from a bypass a mile or two distant. Just keep it easy for them to do so.
Fayetteville, AR built a bypass in the early 1970's. Almost every "independent" (aka mom & pop) motel closed after the big names started popping up along the bypass. The city's reaction? Oh look, more tax revenue! Many restaurants closed, as well, again replaced with big names.
40 years later, the city route has made somewhat of a comeback with fast food and convenience stores on every corner.
Change my be inevitable (except from a vending machine), but consider the consequences and work with those who may be affected.
Interesting correlation with Fayetteville -- which does have more of a "destination" aspect to it because of U of A. It's probably true that any bypass route -- for any city -- will have some deleterious effect upon road-dependent businesses lacking the capital/cash flow to (a) either prominently advertise their presence to prompt customers to leave the bypass and seek them out, or (b) move their facilities to a location along the bypass. I hate to appear cold-hearted here, but there's a level of Darwinist reality permeating these situations -- smaller/independent road-related businesses do find themselves at a disadvantage in comparison with chains whose parent companies or franchisers can pump in cash to shore up the ability to bring in customers.
But having said that, working with the businesses along the current route would be the appropriate path for ODOT to take once a bypass has been given the green light. Possibly modifying the bypass plans for more than one central interchange might help -- along with subsidies provided to the independent lodging operators to move themselves to the bypass (along with mollifying the zoning folks in Muskogee in order to support such development at the interchanges). And as I mentioned in my previous post, maintaining -- and signing -- the current route would likely be enough for the chains, with their prominence within online booking services, to at least maintain their level of business. If ODOT thinks that building a bypass without some serious concessions to or consideration of the situation along the present route is a viable plan, then they need to go back and do some more studies with locally-supplied data.
I have little doubt that in the long run a Muskogee bypass will be built; whether it benefits or detracts from the city itself is squarely in ODOT's court; but doing a bypass "on the cheap" absent local consideration is a precarious path down which to travel.
I would imagine in the long term, a freeway bypass would benefit the city. An all-freeway US-69 might entice more people to choose that route instead of I-35/I-44, US-75, or any of the other competing routes that parallel it. That brings money to Muskogee that would otherwise be somewhere else.
Yeah, that channel 2 news report was a bit misleading for a lot of detail not included in the report. They made it sound like US-69 goes through the heart of downtown Muskogee. It does not.
Downtown Muskogee (2 miles East of US-69) is already effectively bypassed by the Muskogee Turnpike. Then there's Sally Brown Road, a 4-lane divided highway with some frontage roads on the South side of the town. Shawnee Street is another 4-lane divided street with some frontage roads on the North side. It's the 2nd busiest commercial area in Muskogee after the downtown district (home to Arrowhead Mall and an bunch of other stuff). It's also worth mentioning most of Muskogee's population lives East of the downtown area, miles away from the US-69 corridor.
There is a decent amount of business near the intersection of US-62 & US-69 (Olkmulgee Ave & 32nd St). But that stuff is really on the West edge of town. It's not the main downtown district.
The report did have a couple "pro" comments for the bypass, one from a guy complaining about all the stop lights along US-69 and another talking about a church member killed in a car accident on the highway.
Safety has to be the chief motivation for building this Interstate quality bypass. It's dangerous to have such a high volume of semi trucks going through 9 intersections controlled by traffic signals and nearly 30 non-signaled at-grade intersections with left turning traffic going across the main lanes.
Then there's the issue of maintenance. Those heavy trucks are pounding what is effectively a local surface street in Muskogee. One would think the local taxpayers there would prefer all those trucks to be using a highway better designed to handle such traffic rather than pulverizing a local street.
If the US-69 western bypass it built it might provide some additional opportunity to upgrade Shawnee Street and Sally Brown Road, tying both into the new bypass and the Muskogee Turnpike. It would actually be do-able to upgrade Shawnee Street into an urban freeway since it has frontage roads along much of it already and ample property set backs on much of the rest. Most of the new hotels along US-69 are near the intersection of Shawnee Street.
On a more pragmatic level: if Oklahoma City didn't have the clout to get OKC Boulevard built to its specifications, why does Muskogee think they're doing anything but tilting at windmills?
I thought there was a proposal to create a new rail Authority in Oklahoma a couple years ago.
Considering the current state government budget situation in Oklahoma (absolutely horrible) and the constant habit of any passenger rail projects in the US to explode costs into the billions of dollars any notion of Oklahoma having a new rail authority is an utter fantasy.
Meanwhile I don't think Oklahoma has the population, much less population density in urban areas, needed to even make passenger rail systems profitable. We're too spread out to get ridership numbers up to levels that don't require huge amounts of government subsidies. We're also too used to just being able to drive to/from work and other places relatively quickly. Driving around in OKC isn't nearly the chore as it is driving in Houston. Here in Lawton it takes me less than 10 minutes to drive about 6 miles to/from work. I'm certain people in Muskogee measure their local driving trips in minutes. Building a passenger rail line there instead of a US-69 freeway bypass makes about as much sense as solving the problem of a broken water heater by building a tree house in the back yard.
If I tried taking our local bus system it would involve walking a few blocks to the nearest bus stops to my house & work and waiting there in the weather for the bus to arrive. Today the weather is very unpleasantly cold, cloudy and breezy. Summer weather is warm enough in the mornings to make you start sweating in your clothes if you're outdoors for more than a few minutes; the afternoons are routinely blazing hot. Let's not forget about all the damned storms either. Once on the bus it would take a much longer time to get to my destination than driving my own vehicle due to all the different stops along the way. The time involved would have me tempted to just walk or ride a bike and be exposed to the weather the entire time, not to mention be at risk of being mowed down by motorists driving with their heads up their butts.
Any passenger rail system built in OKC or Tulsa would never be able to cover the metro areas effectively enough to get passengers not to use other modes of transportation. Lots of passengers would have to commute using a combination of bus and rail (similar to the bus-ferry-subway combo I endured in NYC). Then there's the park and ride scenario where people drive their cars to a big parking lot next to a rail station and then take the train to their destination. That transit model only works if it's too expensive or impractical to park at that final destination. Parking isn't much of an issue here in Oklahoma. But you're going to pay a decent fare to ride that train and probably pay a significant fee to park next to the station too. That's all the more reason to keep driving the rest of the way rather than parking and riding.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 27, 2017, 12:28:39 PM
Building a passenger rail line there instead of a US-69 freeway bypass makes about as much sense as solving the problem of a broken water heater by building a tree house in the back yard.
+1
Some anti-car zealots (there are some in this thread) think that mass transit is a one-size-fits-all panacea that will lead to a utopian future of rainbows and unicorns. I hate to break it to them, but they're wrong. Very wrong. To set up an effective light rail system in Tulsa, for instance, there would be train tracks crisscrossing the city along all of the section line roads. Even then, the rail would be too far away for some. Places like Oklahoma are simply too sprawled out for mass transit to work. The time to do something about the sprawl was back in the 1930s or before. That ship sailed long ago. The automobile is the only practical way to get around certain places.
I wouldn't go as far as you guys–OKC is developing enough density in the core (the area roughly bounded by I-40, I-44, and I-235) that in some areas mass transit is starting to look workable. This is the area the streetcar system being built is going to serve. But that's a small percentage of the city.
If we're going to have mass transit, it should start small and serve the areas where it will work as opposed to trying to shoehorn it in where it won't. Tie that small downtown OKC network to Campus Corner and whatever's going on up in Tulsa with interurban lines and you have a good start that can be expanded when it becomes necessary.
Note that in the case of OKC, the city is taking the lead with its EMBARK system rather than ODOT having any involvement in it.
Interurban lines going where? Sand Springs? BA? Sapulpa? Those areas are just as sprawled out as Tulsa itself is.
Who is going to pay for all these trains/buses? Do you realize that there would have to be hundreds of buses running 24/7 in a place like Tulsa for it to be usable?
Tax the rich.
Quote from: bugo on December 27, 2017, 03:26:02 PM
Interurban lines going where? Sand Springs? BA? Sapulpa? Those areas are just as sprawled out as Tulsa itself is.
I was thinking something along the lines of a downtown-to-downtown line between OKC and Tulsa, from which you could transfer to downtown public transit in either city. Of course, if your final destination out is in the sprawl somewhere, you might have to take an Uber or something the rest of the way out. C'est la vie.
Nobody would ride it.
I might. A friend of mine gets comped rooms at the Hard Rock sometimes. It would be a fun little trip to go on, assuming that the price of the ticket wasn't exorbitant. Hell of a lot nicer than doing I-44 for the millionth time.
The national passenger network doesn't even function that well even if the cities it served were super walkable and transit friendly like those in Europe are that were built well before the automobile. It takes 2 days to get from LA to Dallas by Amtrak and then to OKC. The rail network would need to be completely rebuilt and that would cost a trillion dollars or more.
That money would be better spent widening and replacing freeways and roads that need it. I'm not talking about whether some transit fanboy doesn't think x amount of lanes should be added or not by factoring in induced demand, I'm speaking in pure mathematical terms that however many lanes need to be added to solve traffic need to be added. It's simple math.
Corridors like this are vital and this project can't come soon enough.
One of the issues that would need to be addressed before the prospect of regional rail passenger service -- and I'm talking conventional service, not new-terrain HSR -- between OKC and Tulsa could be seriously considered would be the condition of the existing tracks. BNSF offloaded the former SLSF ("Frisco") line southwest of Sapulpa decades ago to a smaller regional operating company, as that line (which extended all the way into TX near Childress) wasn't producing sufficient revenue for the larger company and was superfluous within their network. Although it varies from operator to operator, regional rail companies, with less available capital, tend to do less -- or "deferred" -- maintenance on their tracks than the major rail lines, since the trains they run are generally shorter and lighter than dispatched by those larger firms. To support intercity passenger service, the line should be rated at 79 mph or greater; at this point, that would have to be determined prior to planning efforts. IIRC, a few years ago one of the extensions proposed for the Ft. Worth-OKC Amtrak service was to Tulsa over this line, but the idea was subsequently dropped (possibly because of rehabilitation costs for the line itself), and Wichita and KC were given prime consideration as destinations. Before any thoughts about OKC-Tulsa rail service advance beyond the preliminary stage, determining if the existing line is adequate to support such service -- or alternately determining the cost of any necessary refurbishment -- would be necessary.
The rail line going West out of Sapulpa is the only existing rail line between OKC and Tulsa. Its route is pretty curvy and meandering, and only a single track line. That doesn't work so well for pulling double duty as a regional passenger rail line. The track condition looks decent judging from the rail crossings, but you sure couldn't run any trains on it at 80mph. The route between Tulsa and OKC has a decent amount of activity, but nothing at all like the major freight rail corridor going through Woodward (the main line between rail yards in Amarillo and Kansas City). Any respectable regional passenger rail line serving OKC and Tulsa would have to be built on a new terrain alignment, whether it's built to high speed geometry or not.
There was a study done that showed a 3-4 hour trip each way. You might have a few people take the trip just to see what it would be like but that is not sustainable. It's faster to take a bus if you don't have a car.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 28, 2017, 02:33:59 PM
It's the rest of the trip, the parts of it between your doorstep and the train station as well as the train station to final destination, that makes people stick to driving cars in droves.
Oh, absolutely. I don't think that you're realistically going to get any appreciable chunk of OKC taking trains on a regular basis like you do in New York. The city simply isn't laid out to support that (and the weather is miserable enough that nobody wants to be out in it). But it would be nice to have some train service because 1) the assurance you get with having another alternate means of transport for situations where your car is broken down or it's unsafe to drive (e.g. inclement weather, you're drunk, ODOT broke the road again, etc.), and 2) Having the rail line might encourage higher-density development around the stations, a la DC Metro. This would increase utility of the rail line because instead of having to get to a destination away from the rail line, the destination is "coming to you". That's a big if, though, and depends on OKC developers realizing the opportunity.
QuoteI can still see a Oklahoma City to Tulsa regional rail passenger rail line being do-able. I think the best thing would be having it begin at Will Rogers World Airport, go up to downtown OKC, then to downtown Tulsa and end at Tulsa International Airport (or a little farther at Catoosa near the Hard Rock). Because of the ridiculous expense of rail it would probably have to be built as a slow speed line rather than as a high speed line costing several billion or more to build. I think a single light rail line from Edmond to downtown OKC and down to Norman might be do-able as well. But those rail lines would do much to serve tourists/visitors rather than resident commuters. The vast majority of people are still going to be stuck driving cars because of where they live and where they work.
I think we're on the same page here. An OKC-Norman line would probably get decent amount of use from OU students riding it up into the city for recreational purposes. And it would hopefully draw some football traffic off I-35, meaning that a football game wouldn't absolutely destroy an innocent bystander's chances of making it anywhere on time. I'm not as informed as to what Edmond residents do for fun (other than call the city about each other's flowerbeds I guess) but I suppose UCO students might be able to use the Edmond line as well.
Quote
But none of this rail stuff is going to do anything to affect the problem in Muskogee and the US-69 corridor in general.
Agreed. I assumed this was an off-topic side discussion.
I just had an interesting thought. If the bypass on the West side of Muskogee is built and the upgrade in McAlester to the George Nigh Expressway is completed that could end up as a pretty significant addition to the Interstate highway system. It may not be I-45 for the time being. But it could very realistically become I-140.
I would have thought that if there were to be a spur Interstate serving Muskogee, it would simply use the Muskogee Turnpike as I-x40 -- and would have happened years ago in a similar fashion to the I-44 extension over the Bailey pike. Functionally, it provides a convenient path to and from eastward I-40 to Tulsa (I've used it as such several times); the fact that it passes through its namesake city is incidental. At this point I can't see a x40 spur deployed over US 69; if the bypass gets Interstate status, it'll be because OK finally decided to avail themselves of a I-45 extension.
The Muskogee Turnpike isn't anywhere near I-standards. Hell, the section south of Muskogee has a narrow raised grassy median with zero left shoulders. In 1982 the FHWA and AASHTO might have approved the I-44 extension, but in 2018 there's no way in hell they would approve the Muskogee Turnpike unless it were massively updated. The only turnpikes that could realistically become interstates are the Creek and Kilpatrick turnpikes.
Quote from: sparker on December 29, 2017, 05:56:59 AM
I would have thought that if there were to be a spur Interstate serving Muskogee, it would simply use the Muskogee Turnpike as I-x40 -- and would have happened years ago in a similar fashion to the I-44 extension over the Bailey pike. Functionally, it provides a convenient path to and from eastward I-40 to Tulsa (I've used it as such several times); the fact that it passes through its namesake city is incidental. At this point I can't see a x40 spur deployed over US 69; if the bypass gets Interstate status, it'll be because OK finally decided to avail themselves of a I-45 extension.
Quote from: bugo on December 29, 2017, 04:31:56 PM
The Muskogee Turnpike isn't anywhere near I-standards. Hell, the section south of Muskogee has a narrow raised grassy median with zero left shoulders. In 1982 the FHWA and AASHTO might have approved the I-44 extension, but in 2018 there's no way in hell they would approve the Muskogee Turnpike unless it were massively updated. The only turnpikes that could realistically become interstates are the Creek and Kilpatrick turnpikes.
I should clarify: the notion of the Muskogee Turnpike joining the Interstate System might have been considerably more realistic 20-30 years ago, when "grandfathering" facilities with marginal or less standards into the system was somewhat more commonplace. There probably would have been the "25-year" limit on qualifying updates applied back then; but FHWA's a bit more picky these days -- unless there was a contract let for at least a paved K-rail median (which would provide
some semblance of shoulders), it would be thumbs down. Unless there's a comprehensive plan to upgrade the Muskogee that no one knows about (
right! :rolleyes:), it's not going to become an Interstate anytime soon.
A bunch of it is all about the funding. What does Oklahoma and the OTA gain by putting Interstate shields on the Muskogee Turnpike? It's not like the federal government is aching to give states lots of highway money these days; the feds want the states to pay for everything themselves. Meanwhile states like Oklahoma dole out the big tax cuts like candy with no realistic way to make up for the revenue loss. I don't exactly see Oklahoma's economy expanding like crazy due to those tax cuts. Most of the growth in this region has been happening South of the Red River.
Meanwhile, OTA really does need to do something about the stupid grassy median on the Muskogee Turnpike from Muskogee down to I-40. There's no left shoulder and the median can be crossed very easily by a car that loses control. I was really frustrated that OTA dragged their feet on installing a median barrier on I-44 South of Lawton. They installed the concrete Jersey barriers on I-44 from Medicine Park to the Missouri border in the mid 1990's, not long after a multiple fatality head-on collision near the Elgin exit of I-44. It took them nearly another 20 years to install a cheaper cable barrier on that last segment of I-44.
OTA also needs to modernize those old toll plazas along the Muskogee Turnpike. They've been rebuilding ones near Tulsa, but South of Muskogee you have the old variety.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 29, 2017, 05:44:08 PM
A bunch of it is all about the funding. What does Oklahoma and the OTA gain by putting Interstate shields on the Muskogee Turnpike? It's not like the federal government is aching to give states lots of highway money these days; the feds want the states to pay for everything themselves. Meanwhile states like Oklahoma dole out the big tax cuts like candy with no realistic way to make up for the revenue loss. I don't exactly see Oklahoma's economy expanding like crazy due to those tax cuts. Most of the growth in this region has been happening South of the Red River.
Meanwhile, OTA really does need to do something about the stupid grassy median on the Muskogee Turnpike from Muskogee down to I-40. There's no left shoulder and the median can be crossed very easily by a car that loses control. I was really frustrated that OTA dragged their feet on installing a median barrier on I-44 South of Lawton. The installed the concrete Jersey barriers on I-44 from Medicine Park to the Missouri border in the mid 1990's, not long after a multiple fatality head-on collision near the Elgin exit of I-44. It took them nearly another 20 years to install a cheaper cable barrier on that last segment of I-44.
OTA also needs to modernize those old toll plazas along the Muskogee Turnpike. They've been rebuilding ones near Tulsa, but South of Muskogee you have the old variety.
The only thing to be gained by an Interstate designation of the Muskogee Tpk. is out-of-state driver comfort to and from points eastward on I-40 and Tulsa -- the I-shield would be a familiar/trusted indication that the Turnpike is indeed the direct route to Tulsa from I-40 (although less so in the other direction). Question: Now that it's officially OK 351, is there BGS signage indicating the route number from OK 51 on the west and I-40 at the southeast terminus? If there's a singularly signed route, then that may be sufficient for navigation of Tulsa-bound traffic.
I believe SH-351 is fully signed (as is SH-364).
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 30, 2017, 07:14:03 AM
I believe SH-351 is fully signed (as is SH-364).
At Muskogee it's OK 165. The non-toll has always been that, but as of Thursday, I noticed the co-sign 165/351 appears to have been dropped, so it's only 165 again unless sign crews made an error?
Quote from: sparker on December 30, 2017, 01:03:13 AM
Question: Now that it's officially OK 351, is there BGS signage indicating the route number from OK 51 on the west and I-40 at the southeast terminus? If there's a singularly signed route, then that may be sufficient for navigation of Tulsa-bound traffic.
Yes, it is signed from both highways.
The only Turner Turnpike shield that I've ever seen is the one near Sapulpa that says (paraphrased) "Turner Turnpike ends in 5 miles. Thanks for travelling."
I moved to Tulsa in 2007 and don't remember ever seeing an I-44 shield with a Turner Turnpike shield. The only turnpike in Oklahoma that I have ever seen that is signed that way is the Cherokee Turnpike which is co-signed with US 412. The Creek and Muskogee Turnpikes were never signed that way either. The OTA removed the old style turnpike shields and replaced them with OK 364 and OK 351 shields on the same day. Where did you see an I-44 shield with a Will Rogers or a Turner Turnpike marker underneath? Do you have a picture?
There are only a few houses scattered here and there in the freeway's path, and depending on routing, only a couple would have to be taken. It's a mostly rural area and most of that land is just forest.
The Gilcrease Expressway/Turnpike is needed as a bypass of downtown and the clusterfuck that is the IDL. This will become the preferred route from I-44 west to the airport, and will benefit traffic that is going from midtown to Sand Springs greatly. I fear for my life every time I drive the IDL and this bypass can't come soon enough.
I'm glad that the 351 and 364 designations exist. The OTA turnpike shields are only barely usable as a navigational aid, and as a result require kludgy, redundant signage.
(https://i.imgur.com/DKpMkh1.jpg?1)
If I were transportation secretary, I'd blatantly steal the old Florida practice of coloring the state outline red on toll routes to distinguish them.
Looks like this project is not so set in stone, according to this article. Stitt claims he is for job growth yet supports the selfish desires of local towns people over statewide mobility improvements. Par for the course unfortunately for Oklahoma. It will be interesting to see if this gets built. This whole corridor needs to become I-45 at least from Tulsa to Dallas.
https://www.muskogeephoenix.com/news/odot-yields-to-stitt-delays-bypass-hearing/article_f486bd5b-f7e4-52cb-8e53-14abe70acc3d.html
Kevin Shitt is an asshole who is against democracy unless it's something he personally agrees with. He's also a religious loon who said his main goal as governor was to use the office as a means to convert non-believers to Christianity. He might be worse than Mary Failure.
I don't want to make this political but it was kind of hard not given the nature of the news regarding this project. I'm not a fan of him, but I'm hoping he was better than the last governor. If he can improve OkDOT and freeway investment as he said he would, that will be nice. However he's not off to a good start with this recent news.
Stitt, like most Republicans these days, champions tax cuts far above anything else. Pander to voters by way of their wallets! That means budget cuts to anything and everything to create more tax cut candy. Forget about any significant new highway projects for awhile. It wouldn't surprise me if Stitt and his cronies tried to abolish the OTA and let the turnpike system fall completely apart as a result (they would never raise gasoline taxes to offset the funding imbalance).
Way too many voters have very unrealistic ideas how far their tax dollars actually go. "Just cut down on government waste and corruption!" We hear it both from voters and politicians, but it is never followed up with any specifics. It's just conveniently vague crap. They expect tax cuts yet demand every level of government do even more work and do it better.
The situation makes me think of the lunacy much of the general public has regarding health and fitness. Too many of us have very unrealistic ideas of how much work, discipline and sacrifice it takes to reach a particular health/fitness goal or just what it takes to maintain our current level of health. We're just winging it mostly, getting exercise infrequently (if at all) and not keeping track of the stuff we eat. It's kind of a sobering experience to start keeping a food diary and see just how many calories a stray snack here and there can cost. It's just as sobering to see just how much sweat you have to bleed at the gym to burn off so many calories.
I'm sure there's other examples similar to that.
I will say, they need to eliminate tolls on I-44, but only with increased gas tax in the state.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 27, 2019, 10:04:41 PM
Stitt, like most Republicans these days, champions tax cuts far above anything else.
Either he's a huge hypocrite or he's lying (probably both). He is trying to gut Oklahoma's medical marijuana program which is a huge source of tax revenue that his Repub buddies won't be having to pay. He's a fool if he destroys what will one day be a billion dollar industry in this state. It will also reduce the quality of life for many Oklahoma residents. He's a fool but is he that stupid?
There are foods painted with gold shavings. These foods cost hundreds of dollars per serving. People welcome this. As for exercise, they only want to walk as far as they need to in order to reach the plate of gold foods. But they are not willing to spend any money to fund roads and they certainly do not want to spend any money to fund passenger rail.
On the other hand, these hundred dollar gold foods are certain to have massive reduce in purchase price. Producers like to charge extra for healthier foods, with the hope that it will be out of reach to most people. But even though there is an increase of traffic, that does not mean the producers are going to be reducing the amount requested to construct road projects.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 27, 2019, 10:04:41 PM
Stitt, like most Republicans these days, champions tax cuts far above anything else. Pander to voters by way of their wallets! That means budget cuts to anything and everything to create more tax cut candy. Forget about any significant new highway projects for awhile. It wouldn't surprise me if Stitt and his cronies tried to abolish the OTA and let the turnpike system fall completely apart as a result (they would never raise gasoline taxes to offset the funding imbalance).
Way too many voters have very unrealistic ideas how far their tax dollars actually go. "Just cut down on government waste and corruption!" We hear it both from voters and politicians, but it is never followed up with any specifics. It's just conveniently vague crap. They expect tax cuts yet demand every level of government do even more work and do it better.
The situation makes me think of the lunacy much of the general public has regarding health and fitness. Too many of us have very unrealistic ideas of how much work, discipline and sacrifice it takes to reach a particular health/fitness goal or just what it takes to maintain our current level of health. We're just winging it mostly, getting exercise infrequently (if at all) and not keeping track of the stuff we eat. It's kind of a sobering experience to start keeping a food diary and see just how many calories a stray snack here and there can cost. It's just as sobering to see just how much sweat you have to bleed at the gym to burn off so many calories.
I'm sure there's other examples similar to that.
Arkansas is doing the same thing. "We're going to cut taxes and fix the roads"
Quote from: Plutonic PandaI will say, they need to eliminate tolls on I-44, but only with increased gas tax in the state.
For 600+ miles of turnpike to maintain those fuel taxes would have to go up a bunch. I'm guessing at least a 10¢-15¢ per gallon hike just for that. Add even more if there's going to be revenue improve or add capacity to existing freeways or build new ones.
Quote from: bugoEither he's a huge hypocrite or he's lying (probably both). He is trying to gut Oklahoma's medical marijuana program which is a huge source of tax revenue that his Repub buddies won't be having to pay. He's a fool if he destroys what will one day be a billion dollar industry in this state.
It's off topic, but medical marijuana isn't a huge source of tax revenue for the state of Oklahoma just yet. Right now these hundreds of new businesses are struggling just to find banks willing to hold their cash and struggling to be able to put their employees "on the books" rather than pay them straight cash. A bunch of these medical marijuana operations are fly-by-night affairs run by people just looking to get rich quick. Consumers will not know the difference between a good dispensary selling quality product versus one selling freaking garbage due to cutting corners and other stupid crap. There are no regulations on quality or safety of these products currently. Word of mouth will be the only enforcement tool. Most of these businesses will fail in short order, leaving only a few stronger ones behind. One fear is if the federal government de-criminalizes marijuana then Big Pharma will completely move in and take over the market
and murder all the local businesses that started up when the law was first passed. And we all know what kind of taxes Big Pharma's companies pay: next to nothing. In the end I don't think pot is going to be the big revenue bonanza some are building it up to be.
^^^^^^^^^^
The discrepancy between Federal law (which still criminalizes marijuana) and the various state measures that have legalized it within that state has caused dispensaries and state-legalized vendors to either avoid federally-chartered banks & credit unions (who generally won't initiate accounts of such businesses) or (a) make it an all-cash business or (b) in the case of the business owners, use their personal accounts for transactions (which, of course puts them in the federal bulls-eye zone re enforcement of those statutes). Out here in CA, cities can -- and often do -- exercise "opting out" of the cannabis trade; these tend toward suburbs fearful of the reaction of property owners/voters to cannabis outlets popping up in their midst. So a "patchwork" of outlets is seen; the previously-approved "medical" application still marshals the greatest number of vendors"; actual recreational-use stores are few & far between and limited to specific jurisdictions. Legalization hasn't been a panacea for either pro-cannabis activists or their opposition.
Getting back to the thread topic -- I wonder if the new Gov. Stitt (appreciate Bugo's nickname!) has made similar entreaties to the folks of Atoka and Stringtown? In any case he's typical of OK politicians (my relatives in that state have dabbled in politics for years; some of them actually running for office) who elect to pander to the so-called "base" -- which in this state tends to veer somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan! Besides the usual social stuff, they see nothing wrong with localized speed traps (just trying to generate income!) or impeding realistic congestion remedies if there's the remotest chance that some business along the existing thoroughfare will see a revenue dip! There are NIMBY's on the left and NIMBY's on the right -- and from what I've seen, the latter dominate the OK scene!
Quote from: sparkerGetting back to the thread topic -- I wonder if the new Gov. Stitt (appreciate Bugo's nickname!) has made similar entreaties to the folks of Atoka and Stringtown?
Actually I think "Kevin's Tit" is even funnier nickname.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 27, 2019, 02:54:45 PM
Looks like this project is not so set in stone, according to this article. Stitt claims he is for job growth yet supports the selfish desires of local towns people over statewide mobility improvements. Par for the course unfortunately for Oklahoma. It will be interesting to see if this gets built. This whole corridor needs to become I-45 at least from Tulsa to Dallas.
https://www.muskogeephoenix.com/news/odot-yields-to-stitt-delays-bypass-hearing/article_f486bd5b-f7e4-52cb-8e53-14abe70acc3d.html
No comments on Muskogee newspaper article. Interesting, perhaps its not as big an issue as the article makes it out to be. Maybe a multi vehicle pile up might jolt this governor elect to accept reality. Most politicians are lawyers. They don't study civil engineering or land use planning.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 28, 2019, 12:42:14 PM
It's off topic, but medical marijuana isn't a huge source of tax revenue for the state of Oklahoma just yet. Right now these hundreds of new businesses are struggling just to find banks willing to hold their cash and struggling to be able to put their employees "on the books" rather than pay them straight cash. A bunch of these medical marijuana operations are fly-by-night affairs run by people just looking to get rich quick. Consumers will not know the difference between a good dispensary selling quality product versus one selling freaking garbage due to cutting corners and other stupid crap. There are no regulations on quality or safety of these products currently. Word of mouth will be the only enforcement tool. Most of these businesses will fail in short order, leaving only a few stronger ones behind. One fear is if the federal government de-criminalizes marijuana then Big Pharma will completely move in and take over the market and murder all the local businesses that started up when the law was first passed. And we all know what kind of taxes Big Pharma's companies pay: next to nothing. In the end I don't think pot is going to be the big revenue bonanza some are building it up to be.
Yet. Right now there are only about 36,000 licensed medical marijuana patients in Oklahoma and another 12,000 patients that are pending approval from the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority. That's a very limited clientele. When recreational cannabis comes to Oklahoma (which is happening sooner or later) there will be far more potential customers and the industry will explode. When that happens, tax revenue will skyrocket. Right now it's crazy in Oklahoma, especially in Tulsa and Oklahoma City. There are dispensaries everywhere and many more are about to open. The OMMA has approved 902 dispensary licenses and nearly 1500 grower licenses. That's 24 patients for every grower. Needless to say, most of these businesses will fail. Some of these businesses that have been approved by the OMMA will never open. It will be interesting to see which ones succeed.
As far as consumers not being able to tell if the product is high quality or not, most cannabis users can tell by looking at, smelling and smoking dry flower. If you go to Tom's Dispensary and buy a gram of Durban Poison and you like it, you know you can always get that strain from that dispensary. Another benefit of medical cannabis is that patients can choose between different strains that have different effects and treat certain symptoms better. On the black market, you get whatever strain your guy happens to have at the time. Cannabis isn't all the same. Strains can have wildly different tastes, smells, looks and effects. Indicas tend to have more sedative-like effects and can treat insomnia and anxiety and other conditions and are good for smoking at night while sativas tend to be more uplifting and energetic and are good for smoking in the daytime.
As far as regulations go, they are coming soon. There needs to be regulation for safety and potency but not much more. Some state legislators and the governor are trying to gut the program, but Senate President Pro Tempore Treat has been working with the cannabis community and has vowed not to change the basics of the bill and that he was going to honor the will of the voters. The most shocking thing is that Senator Treat is a Republicans making him an unlikely ally. He could always flip flop but I'm cautiously optimistic that he will at least attempt to keep his word. If they gut the program thousands of small business owners will have their livelihoods in jeopardy. It would be political suicide to destroy a booming industry. Oklahoma is supposed to be a pro-business and too much regulation is usually seen as a bad thing. The fiscal conservative side of me is thrilled that a new industry is taking off and tax dollars are coming in which means other taxes will be lower. The libertarian side of me likes the lack of strict regulations, even though I think there should be fairly strict regulations on safety, claimed potency and quality of product. The law is nearly perfect as it is except for the lack of those regulations which should be implemented in the next couple of months. If they don't muck it up, Oklahoma will one day look back at their medical marijuana program with pride because it was the best pure medical marijuana program in the country.
Cannabis is not a panacea. It doesn't cure millions of diseases. It is also not going to single handedly going to solve the state's abundance of fiscal problems but it will certainly help and this state needs as much help as it can get. Even a few million helps.
Quote from: bugoWhen recreational cannabis comes to Oklahoma (which is happening sooner or later) there will be far more potential customers and the industry will explode. When that happens, tax revenue will skyrocket.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Colorado hasn't exactly came out with a huge windfall of tax money from pot businesses. One issue is the absurd banking, accounting & tax-paying problem with all these businesses stuck mostly handling cash. The next problem is the influx of people who moved to Colorado with the motive of claiming some form of disability to get on welfare so they could sit around legally smoking pot all day. I personally have a cousin who moved up there to do that very thing and only returned to Oklahoma so he could mooch onto my Aunt's property (but his brother has other plans on that). Several of my relatives live in Colorado so I visit there frequently. Colorado Springs has panhandlers all over the damn place now. It's ridiculous.
I know a couple of people here in Lawton who have licenses to grow, process and sell medical marijuana. They're actually hoping the drug just stays legalized just on a medical basis. If it goes fully recreational then there won't be any controls on anything. Every Tom, Dick and Harry will be
growing their own and it will push prices down to the point where it won't be worth it to run a local business selling the stuff properly. Then if the federal government removes pot from the schedule 1 list of illegal substances that will open the door for Big Pharma, Big Tobacco to jump into the business. That will be bad for Oklahoma-based marijuana sellers because then the tribes will be allowed to get in on the act. They'll sell the product just like they sell cigarettes: at a pretty deep discount versus "white" businesses.
Not everyone is going to get into using marijuana either. The potential customer base will have its limits. In my own personal case my work place has a random drug screening policy set up company-wide since we have a few crane truck drivers. Those drivers have to be drug-free by law. And it's a BIG morale problem testing only those guys and not anyone else (we've already been there done that). These work place policies will not change even if the federal government legalizes pot recreationally. There is currently no reliable sobriety testing method available for marijuana (as well as a number of other drugs), nothing that works similar to the BAC tools for alcohol.
Overall marijuana has a ways to go before it's as accepted as, um, cigarettes. And I personally can't stand cigarettes; they're disgusting.
Quote from: bugoAs far as consumers not being able to tell if the product is high quality or not, most cannabis users can tell by looking at, smelling and smoking dry flower.
An experienced pot smoker might be able to tell the difference between a good or bad sample. Many of these
new users the cannabis industry is hoping to attract will be easier to dupe. The real hazard is selling people dangerous product, stuff with mold or other contaminants on it. Not everyone in the hoard of growers is going to be cultivating product in ethical ways.
Getting back to the original topic, you'd be surprised how much clout local businesses can have when it comes to being bypassed. The original plans for the Mountain Parkway extension/widening in Kentucky called for a bypass of the existing route (US 460) that would run along a ridgetop on the south side of that commercial strip. The local business community complained. Magoffin County traditionally has the highest unemployment in the state, and local leaders felt that if the strip they call "Restaurant Row" was bypassed, those businesses would dry up (nevermind that there's really nothing for the next 50 miles if you're heading west, so anyone who needed gas or food would be stopping in Salyersville or else driving nearly an hour before coming to the next town with any services to amount to anything). So the new-terrain route was nixed, and the decision was made to widen the existing route and put in frontage and backage roads to serve the businesses. This means that instead of one traffic light, there will now be (I think) four.
See also Breezewood, Pa.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 27, 2019, 10:22:09 PM
I will say, they need to eliminate tolls on I-44, but only with increased gas tax in the state.
The tolls on I-44 pay for the rest of the turnpike system. Without them, we wouldn't be able to afford safety turnpikes like the Cherokee.
If any tolls were to be eliminated, I'd say the Turner should go, for the sole reason that it links Oklahoma's two largest cities and there's an economic argument to be made that the toll hinders commerce between the two.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 28, 2019, 05:57:15 PM
Quote from: sparkerGetting back to the thread topic -- I wonder if the new Gov. Stitt (appreciate Bugo's nickname!) has made similar entreaties to the folks of Atoka and Stringtown?
Actually I think "Kevin's Tit" is even funnier nickname.
I prefer "What a piece of Stitt!"
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 29, 2019, 05:34:32 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 27, 2019, 10:22:09 PM
I will say, they need to eliminate tolls on I-44, but only with increased gas tax in the state.
The tolls on I-44 pay for the rest of the turnpike system. Without them, we wouldn't be able to afford safety turnpikes like the Cherokee.
If any tolls were to be eliminated, I'd say the Turner should go, for the sole reason that it links Oklahoma's two largest cities and there's an economic argument to be made that the toll hinders commerce between the two
This would be a good compromise. I think the gas tax in Oklahoma should be raised around 20 cents and OkDOT should be allowed to take on debt for road projects.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 27, 2019, 10:22:09 PM
I will say, they need to eliminate tolls on I-44, but only with increased gas tax in the state.
Bad idea, speaking from an Illinois perspective on this. At least, with the exception of the PTC (due to being screwed by the Pennsylvania State Legislature), toll money goes back to pay for the road system you are driving on. I would merely suggest the OTA join EZ Pass.
Quote from: Brandon on January 30, 2019, 12:04:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 27, 2019, 10:22:09 PM
I will say, they need to eliminate tolls on I-44, but only with increased gas tax in the state.
Bad idea, speaking from an Illinois perspective on this. At least, with the exception of the PTC (due to being screwed by the Pennsylvania State Legislature), toll money goes back to pay for the road system you are driving on. I would merely suggest the OTA join EZ Pass.
Isn't IDOT known as one of the worst DOTs in the country? I can't OkDOT is much better, however you can have a great road network with minimal tolls; look at Texas, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. Those IMO are some of the best networks I've been on and they have little to no tolls.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 30, 2019, 12:52:39 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 30, 2019, 12:04:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 27, 2019, 10:22:09 PM
I will say, they need to eliminate tolls on I-44, but only with increased gas tax in the state.
Bad idea, speaking from an Illinois perspective on this. At least, with the exception of the PTC (due to being screwed by the Pennsylvania State Legislature), toll money goes back to pay for the road system you are driving on. I would merely suggest the OTA join EZ Pass.
Isn't IDOT known as one of the worst DOTs in the country? I can't OkDOT is much better, however you can have a great road network with minimal tolls; look at Texas, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. Those IMO are some of the best networks I've been on and they have little to no tolls.
Texas has been building toll roads all over the place in urban areas. Nevada has very little to actually maintain, and it's Clark County taking the lead on the Las Vegas circumferential freeway (215). Arizona actually has fiscal discipline and money, as does Utah (which isn't adding to the network so much as expanding lanes).
I stand by my points. Texas has much more free roads than tolls roads. I also stated I have no issue with non interstate toll roads. Most of Texas tolls facilities aren't such. Regardless of how much Nevada or Arizona have to maintain, they have incredible roads. Perhaps Oklahoma needs to find a different model instead of having endless rural roads they're responsible for.
Removing tolls on interstates won't spell doom for the state and its roads.
Oregon doesn't have as many miles of roads as Oklahoma.
Quote from: Scott5114Not to leave Lawton out of the loop, but I'm not sure how transit-amenable the place that tore down its downtown to build a mall would be, especially considering any local transit that would be halfway decent would have to loop in Fort Sill somehow, though I imagine you could just have stops at the gates.
In terms of rail travel the ridership levels just wouldn't be high enough to make a spur down to Lawton profitable. The existing rail line going North from Lawton (thru Fort Sill) hits Elgin, Chickasha, Tuttle and Mustang before skirting the airport on its way into OKC. The rail line would have to be upgraded substantially for passenger rail service. The line would have to be double tracked or at least a dozen or more new parallel sidings built to allow reasonable 2-way service. None of that stuff would be cheap. If it was possible to connect additional cities, like Wichita Falls or points farther Southwest the line might have more appeal. The existing track from OKC to Lawton bolts due West from downtown Lawton toward Altus. There is no direct rail link between Lawton and Wichita Falls. Altus is actually a far better rail head than Lawton; multiple lines intersect there.
People in Lawton love their cars. There is a bus service though (LATS); I think Uber and Lyft are eating into that business a bunch though.
Quote from: Plutonic PandaTheir are ways to make up for lost revenue from removing tolls. My plan would abolish OTA and turn over intercity toll facilities to MPO/RTAs or the tribes(if they aren't already owned by the tribes).
Trade control of a 600+ mile toll road network from one agency to be divided up by a bunch of other agencies? Including tribes? That sounds like a very very bad idea. I think the result would be much more than a "slight" increase in fees. Given the unpredictable politics in both "white" and tribe-run agencies I definitely would expect quite a lot of price-gouging on tolls. I also would expect stupid sweet-heart deals to be made between different toll tag agencies. It would suck to need 3 different RFID tags on the windshield just to drive from Lawton to the Missouri border. Finally I would also expect road maintenance to take a big hit, especially on the rural turnpikes that would get no longer get any financial help via revenue from the far busier roads.
Quote from: Plutonic PandaHeartland Flyer extension to Newtown is a must. It needs to be expedited and start yesterday.
I would be in favor of that. Newton is an Amtrak stop on the Chicago to Los Angeles line (via Kansas City and Albuquerque). The Heartland Flyer is currently just a North-South stub from the DFW Amtrak hub. An extension North from OKC thru Wichita and to Newton would effectively create an unbroken Kansas City to San Antonio line.
Quote from: Brandon on January 30, 2019, 12:55:41 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 30, 2019, 12:52:39 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 30, 2019, 12:04:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 27, 2019, 10:22:09 PM
I will say, they need to eliminate tolls on I-44, but only with increased gas tax in the state.
Bad idea, speaking from an Illinois perspective on this. At least, with the exception of the PTC (due to being screwed by the Pennsylvania State Legislature), toll money goes back to pay for the road system you are driving on. I would merely suggest the OTA join EZ Pass.
Isn't IDOT known as one of the worst DOTs in the country? I can't OkDOT is much better, however you can have a great road network with minimal tolls; look at Texas, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. Those IMO are some of the best networks I've been on and they have little to no tolls.
Texas has been building toll roads all over the place in urban areas. Nevada has very little to actually maintain, and it's Clark County taking the lead on the Las Vegas circumferential freeway (215). Arizona actually has fiscal discipline and money, as does Utah (which isn't adding to the network so much as expanding lanes).
Utah's got several new freeway projects planned for the next 10 years or so, and as far as I can tell they have never considered a DOT-run toll road for any of them. One of the early proposals for the Mountain View Corridor was proposed to be built as a toll road by a private company (somewhat similar to the Adams Avenue Parkway in Ogden, but a freeway) though this idea was nixed fairly early on. The DOT does collect some toll revenue from the I-15 express lanes, but I can't imagine they make much (if any) money on those, given the amount of people that cheat and get away with it.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 30, 2019, 04:22:05 PM
Quote from: Plutonic PandaHeartland Flyer extension to Newtown is a must. It needs to be expedited and start yesterday.
I would be in favor of that. Newton is an Amtrak stop on the Chicago to Los Angeles line (via Kansas City and Albuquerque). The Heartland Flyer is currently just a North-South stub from the DFW Amtrak hub. An extension North from OKC thru Wichita and to Newton would effectively create an unbroken Kansas City to San Antonio line.
The only issue with extending the Heartland Flyer is as an adjunct of either (or both) the Southwest Chief which it would meet in Newton or the Texas Eagle in Fort Worth. Cobbling up a schedule which would minimize "dwell" time at either depot before a passenger could transfer from one service to another may not be feasible without changing the schedule of the longer-distance trains. Add to that the fact that the Eagle is one of the most-often delayed trains in the Amtrak compendium, since NB it must pick up cars from the EB Sunset in San Antonio -- and
that train has a miserable on-time record in both directions. And while the SW Chief tends to keep to schedule somewhat better than the Sunset, it's still subject to delays over its nearly 2000-mile route. Unless the extended Heartland (a) makes a RH turn in Newton and heads to KC independently of the Chief, and (b) eschews any attempt to closely coordinate with the Eagle in Fort Worth -- no guarantee re transfer wait time -- its classification as an interregional server would be spurious.
BTW, Fort Worth has always eclipsed Dallas as a rail hub, if not actual destination. UP, BNSF, and KCS have major freight facilities there; Dallas is seen by the railroads (not by the passengers, of course) as more of an "auxiliary" station stop. Dallas' value as a "hub" only pertains to local commute rail service, which
does, quite naturally, revolve around that city center.
Quote from: Scott5114Not to leave Lawton out of the loop, but I'm not sure how transit-amenable the place that tore down its downtown to build a mall would be, especially considering any local transit that would be halfway decent would have to loop in Fort Sill somehow, though I imagine you could just have stops at the gates.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 30, 2019, 04:22:05 PM
In terms of rail travel the ridership levels just wouldn't be high enough to make a spur down to Lawton profitable. The existing rail line going North from Lawton (thru Fort Sill) hits Elgin, Chickasha, Tuttle and Mustang before skirting the airport on its way into OKC. The rail line would have to be upgraded substantially for passenger rail service.
UP has another line going north from Lawton that runs through Apache to Anadarko where it turns east and runs to Chickasha. I do know it isn't rated at the full 286,000 lbs so I'm sure it too would need upgrades.
That rail line would probably be decommissioned South of Anadarko if not for the combination the Dolese rock quarry and Fort Sill farther down South. That particular rail line now has a big decommissioned gap in it between Fort Sill and Walters. The old railroad tracks were dug up and removed (the rails recycled and sold). Now Railroad Avenue in Lawton really doesn't mean anything. There's no railroad next to it.
Fort Sill also gets connected by the rail line that goes up through Elgin. So I guess if it wasn't for the rock quarry out by Medicine Park that rail line would be dug up even farther North.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 01, 2019, 10:42:07 PM
That rail line would probably be decommissioned South of Anadarko if not for the combination the Dolese rock quarry and Fort Sill farther down South.
<snip>
So I guess if it wasn't for the rock quarry out by Medicine Park that rail line would be dug up even farther North.
Dolese sends 3-4 trains a week from their Richards Spur quarry to other Dolese yards (Enid, Yukon, and their Midtown OKC location). I'm sure it would be a big blow if UP was allowed to decommission that line. Shipping that much rock by truck over those distances is quite a bit more expensive.
Yeah, I would prefer the rail line be kept open. I don't like being anywhere near trucks hauling gravel or any other similar load on the highways. Even if the loads are covered stray rocks go flying. They're great at putting dings into vehicles, chipping paint and damaging windshields.
It's a sure bet if Dolese closed down that particular quarry those rails would be dug up, sold and recycled in short order.
Quote from: rte66man on February 02, 2019, 12:29:35 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 01, 2019, 10:42:07 PM
That rail line would probably be decommissioned South of Anadarko if not for the combination the Dolese rock quarry and Fort Sill farther down South.
<snip>
So I guess if it wasn't for the rock quarry out by Medicine Park that rail line would be dug up even farther North.
Dolese sends 3-4 trains a week from their Richards Spur quarry to other Dolese yards (Enid, Yukon, and their Midtown OKC location). I'm sure it would be a big blow if UP was allowed to decommission that line. Shipping that much rock by truck over those distances is quite a bit more expensive.
All the UP lines in that area were old Rock Island tracks (their main "spine" N-S line followed US 81 throughout OK). Most of those lines had deteriorated when the company was divided up back in 1980 and sold to other companies -- including, at the time, SP and MKT, which renamed the line up US 81 as the "Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas" subsidiary. However, MKT wasn't particularly wealthy either, and maintenance was invariably "deferred" until unavoidable. So it's likely that the cluster of UP spur lines in SW OK isn't particularly amenable to heavy volumes of traffic; short movements and shorter trains like the "rock runs" from quarry to material yards would be a common usage of those tracks. But now that UP owns 2 of the 4 major N-S lines through OK (the old MKT main along US 69 is the other), it's likely that all their in-state lines, including the limited-usage spurs, are seeing somewhat better maintenance than before UP purchased MKT back in 1988.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 02, 2019, 03:00:32 PM
Yeah, I would prefer the rail line be kept open. I don't like being anywhere near trucks hauling gravel or any other similar load on the highways. Even if the loads are covered stray rocks go flying. They're great at putting dings into vehicles, chipping paint and damaging windshields.
It's a sure bet if Dolese closed down that particular quarry those rails would be dug up, sold and recycled in short order.
It's UP -- they'd take up the rails and store them in their corporate yards for use on light-duty spurs elsewhere; they've been doing that on old SP spurs out here for the 23 years since they bought SP.
Too bad these RR tracks don't parallel US 69 ;-) :cool: :popcorn:
Quote from: txstateends on February 02, 2019, 03:25:08 PM
Too bad these RR tracks don't parallel US 69 ;-) :cool: :popcorn:
Nevertheless -- the UP tracks that
do parallel US 69 along its entire length from TX north to I-44 are former M-K-T (Missouri-Kansas-Texas) tracks -- the company that bought the old Rock Island (under discussion by the forum's OK contingent) lines in the west-central part of the state. Those tracks are the most direct rail line from DFW to Kansas City -- but they also tend to impinge on the US 69 alignment; in typical rail fashion, they sit on the most favorable and lowest-gradient pathway (understandable, since they got there first!). But it underscores the importance of that particular corridor; and though its location in the Muskogee area (it goes right through downtown east of the present US 69 corridor) doesn't have a direct impact on the bypass plans -- like any transportation facility through an urbanized area, UP is legally obliged to slow down its rail traffic in order to enhance the safety of the many grade crossings. But that's about all the interaction between Muskogee and the rail line there is -- trains passing through; they don't have the opportunity to stop and grab a burger & fries from a locomotive cab. But truck traffic is different -- a city such as Muskogee will rationalize that a through route such as US 69 can and has been monetized simply by requiring
that traffic to slow down and potentially stop for goods & services. It's the same rationale used a thousand or so miles east in Breezewood -- as long as traffic is slowing down anyway, there's a considerably better chance they'll grab that burger/fries -- and even maybe stick around in local lodging if the timing is right. The city has what amounts to a captive audience with each member of that audience a potential source of revenue. And, like the smaller towns to the south along US 69, they'll fight to maintain that dynamic regardless of concepts of (relatively) free & efficient travel. They can't draw revenue from the railroad unless it elects to locate a yard or transfer facility in the area, but they sure can from road traffic!
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 02, 2019, 03:00:32 PM
Yeah, I would prefer the rail line be kept open. I don't like being anywhere near trucks hauling gravel or any other similar load on the highways. Even if the loads are covered stray rocks go flying. They're great at putting dings into vehicles, chipping paint and damaging windshields.
It's a sure bet if Dolese closed down that particular quarry those rails would be dug up, sold and recycled in short order.
That will not happen in any of our lifetimes. According to their website, they opened this quarry before statehood. According the the USGS, it is their largest quarry by volume. You can see from historical aerials how large it has become over the years. Land records show they could mine there for at least another 100 years.
The cost of opening a new quarry in this day and age would preclude them from making an easy decision. Because of the rail component, they could likely not replace that production from either their Cooperton or Davis quarry. as there is no rail anywhere near either location. There is a very substandard FarmRail track 15 miles west near Roosevelt but the max car weights on that line are about 230000 lbs. Getting a rail spur from the BNSF main to their Davis quarry would be cost prohibitive (bridge across the Washita and another across I35).
^^^^^^^^^
If UP is turning a profit due to quarry operations, they'll keep the existing line open to at least minimal requirements for as long as that fiscal situation remains stable.
Quote from: In_Correct on January 28, 2019, 09:07:06 AM
There are foods painted with gold shavings. These foods cost hundreds of dollars per serving. People welcome this. As for exercise, they only want to walk as far as they need to in order to reach the plate of gold foods.
I bet In_Correct's shit stinks from eating all that gold.
Quote from: sparkerIt's the same rationale used a thousand or so miles east in Breezewood -- as long as traffic is slowing down anyway, there's a considerably better chance they'll grab that burger/fries -- and even maybe stick around in local lodging if the timing is right. The city has what amounts to a captive audience with each member of that audience a potential source of revenue. And, like the smaller towns to the south along US 69, they'll fight to maintain that dynamic regardless of concepts of (relatively) free & efficient travel.
As annoying as Breezewood is for travelers that road trip hiccup on I-70 involves one traffic signal, a quarter mile of surface street driving and a non-signaled right turn to get on the Penn Turnpike. Going through the toll plaza another mile down the road could actually take more time depending on the traffic level.
It's about 9 miles from the end of the US-69 freeway on the South side of Muskogee to the Arkansas River bridges North of town. There's over 30 at-grade street intersections (8 with 4-way traffic signals) and lots of driveways along US-69 through Muskogee. Plus there's even more at-grade intersections and another traffic signal before US-69 reaches the Muskogee Turnpike. That's a significantly larger "Breezewood" experience. And then there's plenty of other intersections and traffic lights in all the towns lining US-69 before the highway finally reaches Big Cabin.
I understand the rationale of locals of not wanting a bypass to take potential business around rather than thru town. But I think those people are overlooking 2 possible benefits for Muskogee. First, a bypass would get a bunch of that heavy truck traffic off of locally maintained streets. ODOT (and the federal government to some degree) might provide funding to maintain the US-69 main lanes. But that's not the case for all those connecting streets that heavy trucks are bound to use too. There is definitely a
wear and tear penalty on local infrastructure in courting that highway traffic. The second benefit to building that bypass and ultimately upgrading US-69 to Interstate quality from the Red River to Big Cabin is it would make Muskogee a more attractive location for various kinds of businesses, particularly any sort of distribution facility. More long distance traffic would run through the Muskogee area if it wasn't a bunch of stop and go nonsense along the way. Aside from the heavy trucking crowd most long distance travelers prefer to stay on the Interstates, even if they have to go well out of their way to do it.
Question: Is there a chance that the Muskogee Bypass could be built as a tolled facility? If so, that would leave the existing service-laden stretch of US 69 as the prime "shunpiking" corridor. Also -- if extended north to I-44, that would effectively address the issue -- at least concerning the northern reaches -- of how to finance upgrades of the US 69 corridor (a situation covered in another thread in this region). Such an extension could either track US 69 right up to Big Cabin -- or conceivably strike out due north from its Muskogee path to intersect I-44 at or near the Rogers/Mayes county line (requiring about 15 miles less construction). Again, existing us 69 would be the shunpiking route of choice; giving roadside businesses in Wagoner and Pryor a decent chance of retaining some level of revenue. And since OK has a 60+ year acceptance of its toll roads, branching one off just down to south of Muskogee wouldn't be a stretch. I know the concept of a toll road along the full length of US 69 was shot down decades ago; but this one would be more limited in scope, not to mention mileage. Just a thought............
Theoretically, there's nothing stopping it. But OTA would have to issue new revenue bonds to construct the turnpike–and just did that during the previous administration for the Driving Forward turnpikes. I'm guessing that if OTA tried to issue new bonds at the moment, they'd get really bad interest rates.
There's a couple issues working against a toll road approach on US-69.
First, I don't think a toll road would work at all if nothing more than a Muskogee bypass was built. People would shun-pike that in droves unless the toll was dirt cheap. Even then with the trend going toward automated toll collections anyone without a PikePass would not like the extra surcharge involved with paying by license plate. I think a turnpike would only work if it was built as a significantly longer road, like from Muskogee up to Big Cabin.
Then there's the previous precedent of sorts in Oklahoma where the urbanized area of turnpikes were made "free." The short stretch of I-44 through Lawton is free, I-44 in OKC is free and the same is true for Tulsa. The Muskogee turnpike has 3 free exits in Muskogee. I think residents there would be expecting the same approach with the West-side US-69 bypass.
Finally, it's a rarity for a toll road to carry a US highway designation. US-412 is designated along the Cimarron Turnpike. But normally a US highway will leave an Interstate transitioning into a toll road. US-281, US-277 & US-62 do their best to avoid the H.E. Bailey turnpike between the Red River and OKC. They only multiplex with I-44 on the toll free segments. I think if a new turnpike was built from Muskogee up to Big Cabin the whole thing might have to be built on a new alignment rather than upgrading existing segments of US-69.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 05, 2019, 04:17:33 AM
Theoretically, there's nothing stopping it. But OTA would have to issue new revenue bonds to construct the turnpike–and just did that during the previous administration for the Driving Forward turnpikes. I'm guessing that if OTA tried to issue new bonds at the moment, they'd get really bad interest rates.
They are currently capped out on their bonding capacity. They would have to retire some bonds before they could issue more. And you are right, that would diminish their bond rating, resulting in higher interest rates.
The bypass is mentioned but a new proposed ODOT project addresses US-69 through Muskogee:
QuoteThe Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to improve US-69 from 0.48 miles north of US-64 East (Peak Boulevard), extending north 2.5 miles within the City of Muskogee. The purpose and need for this project is to provide operational improvements, including improvements to a pedestrian bridge (abandoned railroad overpass), extension of an existing bridge over Coody Creek, and reconstruction of the existing pavement. The existing US-69 highway is a primary commuter and truck route, and the proposed project is a continuation of ODOT's commitment to safety and operational efficiency.
ODOT has tasked a Consultant to develop alternatives for correcting the roadway deficiencies while taking into consideration construction costs, right-of-way and utility costs, and environmental constraints.
https://oklahoma.gov/odot/programs-and-projects/public-meetings-and-hearings/20201102.html
I can't remember where but I know somewhere with this project the proposed bypass was mentioned but I'm unsure what the status is of that.
Here are the alternatives:
(https://i.imgur.com/LlKd7CD.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/tYcMEiq.jpg)
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2020, 05:13:18 PM
The bypass is mentioned but a new proposed ODOT project addresses US-69 through Muskogee:
QuoteThe Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to improve US-69 from 0.48 miles north of US-64 East (Peak Boulevard), extending north 2.5 miles within the City of Muskogee. The purpose and need for this project is to provide operational improvements, including improvements to a pedestrian bridge (abandoned railroad overpass), extension of an existing bridge over Coody Creek, and reconstruction of the existing pavement. The existing US-69 highway is a primary commuter and truck route, and the proposed project is a continuation of ODOT's commitment to safety and operational efficiency.
ODOT has tasked a Consultant to develop alternatives for correcting the roadway deficiencies while taking into consideration construction costs, right-of-way and utility costs, and environmental constraints.
https://oklahoma.gov/odot/programs-and-projects/public-meetings-and-hearings/20201102.html
I can't remember where but I know somewhere with this project the proposed bypass was mentioned but I'm unsure what the status is of that.
https://www.muskogeepolitico.com/2019/04/odot-abandons-muskogee-bypass-plan.html
While not officially dead, it is in suspended animation.
Thanks for the update. I'd love to see an Oklahoma highways plan that upgrades certain routes long distance to interstate quality roads like US-69 and US75. It would be nice to see more emphasis on this corridors. Just gotta find the money.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2020, 05:13:18 PM
The bypass is mentioned but a new proposed ODOT project addresses US-69 through Muskogee:
QuoteThe Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to improve US-69 from 0.48 miles north of US-64 East (Peak Boulevard), extending north 2.5 miles within the City of Muskogee. The purpose and need for this project is to provide operational improvements, including improvements to a pedestrian bridge (abandoned railroad overpass), extension of an existing bridge over Coody Creek, and reconstruction of the existing pavement. The existing US-69 highway is a primary commuter and truck route, and the proposed project is a continuation of ODOT's commitment to safety and operational efficiency.
ODOT has tasked a Consultant to develop alternatives for correcting the roadway deficiencies while taking into consideration construction costs, right-of-way and utility costs, and environmental constraints.
https://oklahoma.gov/odot/programs-and-projects/public-meetings-and-hearings/20201102.html
I can't remember where but I know somewhere with this project the proposed bypass was mentioned but I'm unsure what the status is of that.
Here are the alternatives:
I really hope they're talking about doing better access management with this. I don't think the two-way left-turn lane should even be on the table; that portion of US 69 should be as divided and access-controlled as is feasible within the context.
At least the lanes would be wide enough.
Did I hear somebody say "Band-Aid"? I suppose with all the rancor and reaction to the previous bypass concept, a "partial upgrade in place" is the best that can be expected from that venue.
Quote from: sparker on November 17, 2020, 06:16:21 AM
Did I hear somebody say "Band-Aid"? I suppose with all the rancor and reaction to the previous bypass concept, a "partial upgrade in place" is the best that can be expected from that venue.
+1
It's a sop to the NIMBY crowd. Kick the can down the road on making a bypass decision. Revisit in 7-10 years when the traffic becomes even more intolerable.
Quote from: rte66man on November 17, 2020, 09:05:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on November 17, 2020, 06:16:21 AM
Did I hear somebody say "Band-Aid"? I suppose with all the rancor and reaction to the previous bypass concept, a "partial upgrade in place" is the best that can be expected from that venue.
+1
It's a sop to the NIMBY crowd. Kick the can down the road on making a bypass decision. Revisit in 7-10 years when the traffic becomes even more intolerable.
Just build the bypass and don't allow at grade crossings. Not sure what these people feel they are accomplishing by doing nothing but ODOT should prepare for the inevitable that interstate 45 is extended to Tulsa. Texas is nearly done making US75 fully modern interstate grade from Dallas to the state line there have been some hints that there could be signing of I45 to Sherman or Denison eventually.
Quote from: motorola870 on December 22, 2020, 02:56:34 AM
Quote from: rte66man on November 17, 2020, 09:05:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on November 17, 2020, 06:16:21 AM
Did I hear somebody say "Band-Aid"? I suppose with all the rancor and reaction to the previous bypass concept, a "partial upgrade in place" is the best that can be expected from that venue.
+1
It's a sop to the NIMBY crowd. Kick the can down the road on making a bypass decision. Revisit in 7-10 years when the traffic becomes even more intolerable.
Just build the bypass and don't allow at grade crossings. Not sure what these people feel they are accomplishing by doing nothing but ODOT should prepare for the inevitable that interstate 45 is extended to Tulsa. Texas is nearly done making US75 fully modern interstate grade from Dallas to the state line there have been some hints that there could be signing of I45 to Sherman or Denison eventually.
As I've reiterated several times, there's a codicil (Section 1174) in the 1991 ISTEA act that pre-approves US 69/75 and US 69 alone north of the Atoka split as an Interstate highway upon construction to appropriate standards as well as an application to that effect from ODOT. However, that only covers the corridor from the TX state line to I-40 at Checotah; north from there is unaddressed by that legislation. Any upgrade activity in TX to (ostensibly) extend I-45 north to the state line would put the ball squarely in OK's collective court. But overcoming longstanding local objections (Stringtown, Atoka, etc.) while also cobbling up the funds to actually effect the necessary construction for freeway conversion plus upgrades of the existing freeways in Bryan County plus from McAlester north would be one of the more sizeable non-toll projects undertaken in OK in decades. But doing so would likely be the only way to "kick-start" a revisited Muskogee bypass -- bring I-45 to within shouting distance and then wait for pressures from outside (truckers and other roadway users) and inside (locals having to deal with increased traffic issues on the current US 69 arterial) to boil over. It's clear that self-interest is driving the Muskogee standpoint -- but that's a double-edged sword. If I were making the decision within ODOT, I'd just call a "no-build" for the time being for the US 69 corridor and let the whole thing reach a boiling point as is.
Problem is that just because something reaches a boiling point doesn't mean it will ever get addressed–SH-9 in Norman is at LOS D or E most of the day, with nary a peep from ODOT or the legislature on addressing it. Of course, if you look at the 2020 by-precinct election map for Cleveland County, you can see a possible explanation for that...
Welcome to Oklahoma politics!
No Hints At All. The Right Of Way is mostly there, but there are numerous bridges and ramps that must be upgraded in Sherman and Colbert. They should build bypasses around towns that want to be bypassed instead, and on completely different highways. It is taking too long for upgrades to happen. There should not even be feasibility studies done on towns that prevents improvements.
There is no doubt at all US-69/75 from North of Dallas up thru Sherman and Denison to the Red River will be fully upgraded to Interstate standards. Not only that, but the highway seems on track to be expanded to 3 lanes in each direction, or even 4x4 in some spots (like in Sherman). The Dallas North Tollway is planned to dove-tail into US-69/75 on the North side of Denison, just short of the river.
In Oklahoma, Interstate quality upgrades of US-69/75 are a sure thing from the Red River up to the US-70 bypass on the South side of Durant. The freeway upgrade in Calera is planned. That will leave some minor upgrades to do in Colbert and some frontage roads to build. The existing freeway in Durant can be upgraded without taking any new ROW.
North of Durant is the big problem. Folks in Atoka and Stringtown do not want anything to be done with US-69/75 other than routine maintenance on the existing road. They're not interested in freeway upgrades through the two towns and they absolutely do not want their towns to be bypassed. Catch 22 situation. The only thing that helps the situation is that over the long term both towns are aging out and dying. Who in their right mind would want to move there? Anyone who grew up in either town would have been dying to escape for better opportunity elsewhere.
In the nearer term ODOT just has to do what upgrades it can on US-69. In McAlester the freeway upgrade on the George Nigh Expressway is very do-able. They can extend that down across the Indian Nation Turnpike interchange and to the main entrance of the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant. Military installations do like having freeway access.
It's kind of a Chicken vs Egg thing. But if TxDOT signs US-69/75 as I-45 up to the Red River then it will be very possible for US-69 to be signed as I-45 from Checotah (and I-40) down thru McAlester and the McAlester AAP. The North TX segment of I-45 could then wind up being signed up to Durant once the upgrades in Calera and Colbert are done. That situation would leave a very obvious gap for I-45 in-state with Atoka and Stringtown square in the middle of that gap. Blocking in those backward towns with segments of I-45 to the North and South would create a good bit of political pressure. The same approach could be applied to the folks in Muskogee. Just start building another segment of I-45 stemming off I-44 in Big Cabin and moving South. The entire process will likely take more than a decade or more to complete. Hell, by then Atoka and Stringtown could be mostly ghost towns. By then the opposition to upgrading US-69/75 into a freeway there could be pushing up daisies.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 23, 2020, 12:08:30 AM
North of Durant is the big problem. Folks in Atoka and Stringtown do not want anything to be done with US-69/75 other than routine maintenance on the existing road. They're not interested in freeway upgrades through the two towns and they absolutely do not want their towns to be bypassed. Catch 22 situation. The only thing that helps the situation is that over the long term both towns are aging out and dying. Who in their right mind would want to move there? Anyone who grew up in either town would have been dying to escape for better opportunity elsewhere.
These towns are indeed hemorrhaging population, but the pandemic could present a golden opportunity to get folks to move to places like this. A lot of jobs are now remote, and if you have a job where you never have to go into an office, you can theoretically live anywhere with a good broadband connection. These small towns could market themselves as an alternative to living in a big city for those who work at home. Rural areas need to focus on improving the infrastructure and bringing high quality high speed internet to the boonies. Rural areas could be even more attractive for some remote workers who don't want to live in a city. I'm specifically thinking about the Ouachita Mountains in southern Le Flore County and northern McCurtain County in southeastern Oklahoma. But I don't expect them to take advantage of this opportunity and they will continue the decline.
Quote from: bugo on December 23, 2020, 02:20:46 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 23, 2020, 12:08:30 AM
North of Durant is the big problem. Folks in Atoka and Stringtown do not want anything to be done with US-69/75 other than routine maintenance on the existing road. They're not interested in freeway upgrades through the two towns and they absolutely do not want their towns to be bypassed. Catch 22 situation. The only thing that helps the situation is that over the long term both towns are aging out and dying. Who in their right mind would want to move there? Anyone who grew up in either town would have been dying to escape for better opportunity elsewhere.
These towns are indeed hemorrhaging population, but the pandemic could present a golden opportunity to get folks to move to places like this. A lot of jobs are now remote, and if you have a job where you never have to go into an office, you can theoretically live anywhere with a good broadband connection. These small towns could market themselves as an alternative to living in a big city for those who work at home. Rural areas need to focus on improving the infrastructure and bringing high quality high speed internet to the boonies. Rural areas could be even more attractive for some remote workers who don't want to live in a city. I'm specifically thinking about the Ouachita Mountains in southern Le Flore County and northern McCurtain County in southeastern Oklahoma. But I don't expect them to take advantage of this opportunity and they will continue the decline.
If small towns want to lure the new wave of telecommuters, they are going to need more than just good internet and no traffic. They need stuff to do. They'll need parks and other public lands, restaurants that don't have drive thrus, and a place to get a beer that is fun rather than depressing. Might help to have a grocery store because driving half an hour or more to get food is annoying.
Quote from: In_Correct on December 22, 2020, 11:32:44 PM
There should not even be feasibility studies done on towns that prevents improvements.
Quote from: In_Correct on December 22, 2020, 11:32:44 PM
There should not even be feasibility studies
Quote from: In_Correct on December 22, 2020, 11:32:44 PM
There should not even be feasibility studies
What?
The real world ain't a game of Cities: Skylines with the unlimited money mode turned on.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 23, 2020, 12:08:30 AM
In Oklahoma, Interstate quality upgrades of US-69/75 are a sure thing from the Red River up to the US-70 bypass on the South side of Durant. The freeway upgrade in Calera is planned under construction. That will leave some minor upgrades to do in Colbert and some frontage roads to build. The existing freeway in Durant can be upgraded without taking any new ROW.
FTFY
ODOT already has ROW acquisition for 69 from the end of the Calera work down to the OK91 interchange in the 8 Year plan. Some sort of rebuild of the OK91 interchange is also on the schedule.
Quote
In the nearer term ODOT just has to do what upgrades it can on US-69. In McAlester the freeway upgrade on the George Nigh Expressway is very do-able. They can extend that down across the Indian Nation Turnpike interchange and to the main entrance of the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant. Military installations do like having freeway access.
All of US69 in McAlester past Savanna is either scheduled for ROW acquisition or construction in the next 8 years. That will almost make 69 from McAlester to Summit (just south of Muskogee) interstate standard. There are some merges and other things that aren't quite there but all but a stretch between Buck of Gaines Creek Road and Hereford Road will be free of at-grade intersections.
Quote from: bugoThese towns are indeed hemorrhaging population, but the pandemic could present a golden opportunity to get folks to move to places like this. A lot of jobs are now remote, and if you have a job where you never have to go into an office, you can theoretically live anywhere with a good broadband connection. These small towns could market themselves as an alternative to living in a big city for those who work at home.
Small towns and rural areas are caught in a severe, negative feedback loop in growth due to a bunch of complicated factors. The local tax base in such towns is often miniscule. Small town populations skew very old, very white and very conservative in politics. They don't want to pay taxes for anything. So the streets and other elements of infrastructure (water, sewage, trash pick-up) suffer, the local school districts are starved for resources and the town may rely on the county for police service and volunteers for fire fighting.
Young
working age, TAXPAYING, child-bearing age adults would prefer to not live in such places. Job opportunities are typically very limited. There is not much social life in small towns. They have to drive to bigger cities to eat out, find things to do, be entertained, etc. Any families with school age kids who can afford to move to bigger towns or cities often do so because the public schools are going to be better staffed and equipped. If the parents want to send their kids to a different kind of school (private, charter, religious, etc) they're usually only going to have those options in larger towns and cities.
Broadband Internet service is a newer problem affecting small towns and rural areas. Very often the quality of residential Internet service in small towns ranges from outdated to just terrible. In order to work from home effectively these days you need the ability to do video teleconferencing and send big data files. It would be a struggle to do that with a 3 megabit DSL connection and a non-starter with a DSL connection running only 300-400 kilobits per second. Gigabit speed residential Internet service is growing more common in large cities and even most mid-size and small cities are seeing big gains in bandwidth.
Some tech experts talk about 5G as if it's going to be a great alternative for small towns. The problem is 5G towers have limited broadcast range and cost a good bit to deploy. Plus all those towers have to connect to a high speed backbone.
The telecom outfits aren't going to run those fiber lines just anywhere. Those lines cost a lot of money. And then there's the cost of the service. Small towns don't exactly have lots of people with deep pockets living there.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic exposed another vulnerability in small towns: health care. Local clinics in small towns aren't equipped to handle something like an outbreak of a deadly, novel virus. They can barely handle the more routine things, like someone having a stroke or heart attack. This factor is going to do more to push elderly people into cities along with the young people willingly moving to them.
All of those factors do not bode well for towns like Atoka and Stringtown. As the population in those towns continues to age out they will have less and less ability to block efforts from ODOT and other legislators from doing major improvements to the US-69/75 corridor through there. If I was a resident in Atoka or Stringtown and wanted either place to have a better looking future I'd be begging for I-45 to come through there. That would allow more service businesses to sprout up there, followed by distribution businesses and on and on.
Quote from: rte66manAll of US69 in McAlester past Savanna is either scheduled for ROW acquisition or construction in the next 8 years. That will almost make 69 from McAlester to Summit (just south of Muskogee) interstate standard. There are some merges and other things that aren't quite there but all but a stretch between Buck of Gaines Creek Road and Hereford Road will be free of at-grade intersections.
That's good news the section of US-69 down to OK-91 and Colbert is in the 8 year plan. Once the Calera project is done that will increase the pressure to complete that next segment.
FWIW, Muskogee is trying to bill themselves as a Jefferson Highway community. The original route is signed through town. It may not add up to a larger population, but it does bring in tourist traffic.
Maybe putting up "Future Interstate 45 corridor" signs along US 69 & 75 from Dallas, Texas to Muskogee, Oklahoma (or somewhere) will jump-start funding and construction to upgrade the entire corridor, even though I know it won't. This has been another edition of "Roadgeek Dreams Meet Reality" segment. Have a good night!
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2020, 06:54:17 PM
Maybe putting up "Future Interstate 45 corridor" signs along US 69 & 75 from Dallas, Texas to Muskogee, Oklahoma (or somewhere) will jump-start funding and construction to upgrade the entire corridor, even though I know it won't. This has been another edition of "Roadgeek Dreams Meet Reality" segment. Have a good night!
Maybe we need another ARRA to repave roads that don't really need it.
Quote from: US71FWIW, Muskogee is trying to bill themselves as a Jefferson Highway community. The original route is signed through town. It may not add up to a larger population, but it does bring in tourist traffic.
That local tourism effort should not come at the expense of improving the efficiency of flow and safety of a major commercial traffic corridor. There are more miles of historic Route 66 in Oklahoma than any other state. Numerous towns along the way have popular tourist attractions. These businesses do well despite the fact I-44 and I-40 run parallel to the route. I don't see any reason why various stops along the old Jefferson Highway route can't do well under similar circumstances.
Quote from: US71 on December 23, 2020, 04:52:30 PM
FWIW, Muskogee is trying to bill themselves as a Jefferson Highway community. The original route is signed through town. It may not add up to a larger population, but it does bring in tourist traffic.
There have been Lincoln Highway signs erected in CA (primarily in and around Auburn) for some time now; it's questionable whether there's been any (pre-COVID, of course) increase in tourism attributable to that signage.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2020, 06:54:17 PM
Maybe putting up "Future Interstate 45 corridor" signs along US 69 & 75 from Dallas, Texas to Muskogee, Oklahoma (or somewhere) will jump-start funding and construction to upgrade the entire corridor, even though I know it won't. This has been another edition of "Roadgeek Dreams Meet Reality" segment. Have a good night!
Maybe we can get the guy who put up the fake I-5 trailblazer sign on the CA 110 BGS in downtown L.A. a few years back to cobble up some "Future I-45 Corridor" signs and surreptitiously plant them along US 69(75). Hell, if the grotesque "Craig County" sign can persist, maybe ODOT won't even notice them for years!
Quote from: US71 on December 23, 2020, 08:38:26 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2020, 06:54:17 PM
Maybe putting up "Future Interstate 45 corridor" signs along US 69 & 75 from Dallas, Texas to Muskogee, Oklahoma (or somewhere) will jump-start funding and construction to upgrade the entire corridor, even though I know it won't. This has been another edition of "Roadgeek Dreams Meet Reality" segment. Have a good night!
Maybe we need another ARRA to repave roads that don't really need it.
What evidence is there that ARRA was used on roads that didn't need it? At least in NY, that was far from the case.
Quote from: Rothman on December 23, 2020, 09:56:01 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 23, 2020, 08:38:26 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2020, 06:54:17 PM
Maybe putting up "Future Interstate 45 corridor" signs along US 69 & 75 from Dallas, Texas to Muskogee, Oklahoma (or somewhere) will jump-start funding and construction to upgrade the entire corridor, even though I know it won't. This has been another edition of "Roadgeek Dreams Meet Reality" segment. Have a good night!
Maybe we need another ARRA to repave roads that don't really need it.
What evidence is there that ARRA was used on roads that didn't need it? At least in NY, that was far from the case.
Personal observation.
Quote from: sparker on December 23, 2020, 09:34:32 PM
Maybe we can get the guy who put up the fake I-5 trailblazer sign on the CA 110 BGS in downtown L.A. a few years back to cobble up some "Future I-45 Corridor" signs and surreptitiously plant them along US 69(75). Hell, if the grotesque "Craig County" sign can persist, maybe ODOT won't even notice them for years!
Maybe Jake can make us a bulk deal ;)