News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

US 69 Muskogee Bypass

Started by US71, November 08, 2017, 05:40:30 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Scott5114

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.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef


bugo


Scott5114

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.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Plutonic Panda

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.

sparker

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.   

Bobby5280

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.

Plutonic Panda

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.

Scott5114

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.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Bobby5280

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.

sparker

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.

bugo

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.

sparker

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.

Bobby5280

#62
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.

sparker

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. 

Scott5114

I believe SH-351 is fully signed (as is SH-364).
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

US71

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?
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

bugo

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.

bugo

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."

bugo

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?

bugo

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.

bugo

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.

Scott5114

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.



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.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Plutonic Panda

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

bugo

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.

Plutonic Panda

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.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.